Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Adjournment (Whitsun)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Harry Barnes: A serious incident, which could have been disastrous, occurred in north-east Derbyshire last Thursday. It happened at about 5.30 pm in Killamarsh in my constituency on the Leigh Environmentals site which, since autumn 1997, has been owned by Sarp UK Ltd., which has a French parent company. A tanker leaked sulphuric and nitric acid, which led to the formation in the area of an orange cloud whose vapour threatened the Killamarsh community and, later, other communities as it moved around.
Vapour from sulphuric acid can quickly damage lungs, burn and eat away flesh and strip paint from cars. Sulphuric acid in water kills fish, and plants survive the vapour little better. Laboratory technicians know that sulphuric acid burns holes in their coats. Nitric acid is similar, but it vaporises more easily and was perhaps the basis of the cloud in the area.
The incident was so serious that emergency planners considered evacuating thousands of people from the Killamarsh area. However, they decided not to do that as they feared that they would move people into the path of the shifting cloud. The situation could have been worse if the fire brigade had not already been on the site dealing with a minor leak to which the management had alerted it. When the fire brigade arrived, the leak became much more serious and the vapour cloud developed. It could also have been worse if children had been at a nearby primary school and had had to be locked away in the school while their parents worried about what was happening.
The site is next to the Rother Valley country park. Fortunately, few people were there at the time of the incident—although its many fish, birds and other wildlife were in danger from the cloud. The vapour cloud moved into the Rother Valley constituency, then moved towards Halfway, which is part of the Sheffield, Attercliffe constituency, before changing direction in the wind and moving towards the Bassetlaw constituency and dispersing. Therefore, it moved through at least four parliamentary constituencies located in three counties—Derbyshire, South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire—where different authorities are responsible for public protection.
Inquiries and investigations are being conducted by the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, environmental health officers and the county council.

The four Members of Parliament from the constituencies that I have mentioned, including me, have asked the Minister for the Environment to co-ordinate action and to conduct his own investigation. I reinforce that call now. I also wish to raise some matters that must be pursued in the ministerial investigation.
At first glance, the emergency action at the plant seems to have gone according to the book. However, off-site emergency arrangements were ad hoc because there was virtually no plan on which to act. Some people did some excellent work in trying circumstances, but existing planning provisions must be examined closely.
The police blocked off some, but not all, of the roads into Killamarsh. Many of the drivers of the cars that were turned away had families in Killamarsh whom they wanted to reach. Buses were stopped, and passengers left them and walked into Killamarsh. Helicopters were sent to the area to tell the people of Killamarsh to get indoors, to close their windows and generally to close themselves in. Unfortunately, people had to go out of their homes to hear the messages. I have come across only one constituent who heard what was being said.
Other firms are situated next to Leigh Environmentals, and they seem also to have been in the dark. They did not know what was happening or what they were supposed to do.
Unfortunately, the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1984 do not apply to the plant. The regulations call for an off-site emergency plan—for example, having a siren system, providing instructions to householders about what they should do in the event of an emergency, and ensuring that emergency exercises take place so that the population in the area is used to what is done. That provision operates, for instance, in my constituency at Staveley Chemicals. People in the area have cards in their homes that explain what provisions are made when an emergency arises. Nothing like that was available when the incident took place at Killamarsh.
There are the questions whether the CIMAH regulations should apply to Killamarsh and whether they should be extended. Even if they are not to apply legally, should they not voluntarily be acted on quickly? Should there be alternative regulations operating in respect of the chemical reclamation plant that is known locally as Leigh Environmentals?
The 1982 European Union's Seveso directive is not yet fully in place. It sets up the EU regulations on the control of major accidents and hazards. A consultative exercise is taking place under the Health and Safety Executive, but it will not report until September. At the very least, the situation at Killamarsh needs to be taken on board by the HSE. Every encouragement needs to be given to ensure that the HSE's report is produced quickly, that it is a serious report and that it is acted on.
The incident arose from a leaking tanker, not from a failure of any of the on-site processes. There have been failures at the Leigh Environmentals plant. Following one such failure, I initiated an Adjournment debate way back on 20 February 1990. The current incident at Killamarsh was the result of a leak from a tanker, which could have occurred anywhere between British Aerospace in the west midlands, where the material was collected, and Killamarsh.
The tanker was one of Sarp's fleet of tankers. That fleet needs to be checked out thoroughly. Following this incident, the implications of all tankers carrying dangerous materials should be investigated closely.
Residents in the area continue to complain of nauseating smells, especially from the main drains and sewers in Killamarsh. They blame Leigh Environmentals for those smells. There is confusion over who is to be held responsible when complaints are made. The environmental agencies, environmental health officers, the district council and Yorkshire Water are contacted. People often find themselves moved from one authority to the other without any clear action being taken. Greater co-ordination is needed, as is greater clarity on who is responsible for what, so that when problems arise and are fed into one agency and it is decided that another agency should act, the relevant information is passed on quickly to the other agency and every effort is made by the body that received the information to assist the process.
The Environment Agency grants consents for the disposing of liquids from Leigh Environmentals to the sewers. When those liquids are discharged they may be subject to bacteriological change, which may cause the hydrosulphide smells. That, or something similar, may occur, given the mixture of elements in the sewers. That should be faced when the Environment Agency grants consents in the area. It needs to be taken on board by the Minister for the Environment.
I shall summarise what I see as the immediate requirements. First, we need a proper investigation through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that is openly reported. Secondly, we want a full off-site plan to be operated in the area. Thirdly, we want regulations requiring stringent community safety, which will be part of that plan. Fourthly, we want a checking of tankers, especially the Sarp fleet. Fifthly, we want clear environmental controls to tackle dangerous discomforts in the communities involved.
Unless there is a dramatic improvement, this will not be the last occasion when I shall endeavour to raise the matter in the House. However, this is my first opportunity to do so. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will ensure that the information that I have put before the House is passed to the Minister for the Environment and that there are responses to the points that I have raised.

Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Whitsun recess, I wish to raise four brief matters. Probably the Leader of the House is thinking, "My goodness, here he goes again. It was all raised during the Easter Adjournment debate."
First, there is the relationship between the Government and the House of Commons. Again, probably, the Leader of the House will be suggesting that I attend the debates of the Modernisation Committee. I thoroughly disapprove of what is going on here. This place is slowly but surely being destroyed. I think that the Labour party was primarily to blame for the appalling turnout in the local

elections. We have only to think of Salford, where only 11 per cent. of the people voted. In many areas, the turnout was 20 per cent.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman is blaming the Labour party for a turnout of 11 per cent. at Salford. Would I be correct in thinking that, of the 11 per cent., probably only 1 per cent. was voting Conservative, if the Conservative party was lucky? The apathy lies with the Conservative party in Salford.

Mr. Amess: I have no detailed knowledge of the politics in Salford. Whatever the 11 per cent. who voted were, surely it is something which all Members should be depressed about. It is clear that 89 per cent. of the electorate did not think that it was worth voting. That is all about the way in which this place is being run.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the turnout at local elections has some relationship to the amount of literature that may be put through constituents' doors to remind them that the elections are taking place and to encourage them to vote? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in most of the wards that were up for election in my constituency, the Conservative party did not put a leaflet through anyone's door? I wonder whether that contributed to the low turnout.

Mr. Amess: Obviously, I regret that. I have no knowledge of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. However, the style of government since 1 May has meant that fewer and fewer people are interested in politics.

Mr. Hoyle: As the hon. Gentleman has so much knowledge, could he tell us how many people turned out to vote in Basildon?

Mr. Amess: The hon. Gentleman may be a little out of touch—I no longer represent the Basildon constituency. I am the Member of Parliament for Southend, West. My former seat is now represented by two hon. Members, one Conservative and one Labour.
The House will be delighted to know that I worked in six areas in the local elections. On election night, I worked in the constituency of Basildon, in the ward where the Labour Member of Parliament lives. I am delighted to say that we won the seat from the Labour party, so it was a Conservative gain. We also gained five seats in Basildon.
In the Easter Adjournment debate, I complained to the Leader of the House that the Prime Minister's attendance in this place was appalling. He might have listened to one or two people because he has made two or three statements since then, but his voting record is only 5 per cent. The voting record of his two predecessors, who were older than he is, was 30 per cent. The right hon. Lady will no doubt mention Ireland when she eventually sums up the debate, but the Prime Minister's two predecessors had just as important matters to deal with. For whatever reason, the leader of the Labour party simply does not think that this place is as important as talking to newspapers and appearing on television.
My main point is that, while some Ministers are excellent in dealing with constituency correspondence—their replies are courteous and they do everything possible


to help—others take more than three months to reply, which is simply not on. Moreover, when letters are continually signed "pp", it is deeply insulting to hon. Members, and constituents will draw their own conclusions. I have tried to be non-partisan by praising those Ministers who deserve praise, but I hope that the Leader of the House will have a quiet word with one or two Government Departments—I am not prepared to name them now.
My second point concerns British Rail. I doubt whether hon. Members here today recall my "Public Journey" shown on television, which I undertook with one or two Essex Members of Parliament and a former British Rail chairman. It was a most unsatisfactory public journey—we used to call the Fenchurch Street line the "misery line". The chairman did not remain in place for long after that. I hope that a number of hon. Members saw the Evening Standard article last night, in which many of my constituents and others in Essex were interviewed. They have been very pleased since our line was privatised. Before that, the general manager on the line was second in unpopularity to Saddam Hussein. They now think that he is doing a splendid job. The punctuality of trains has risen to 95 or 96 per cent., and the service has improved immeasurably.
Would the Leader of the House be prepared to comment on the privatisation of the LondonTilbury-Southend line as it affects the area that I represent? Is she prepared to say that privatisation has been a success?

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that satisfaction is far from universal? In my area, which is served by Great Western, satisfaction levels have declined to such an extent that the company has written to us apologising for the fall in standards. I missed a meeting chaired by the Leader of the House last night because my train was an hour and a half late. If the hon. Gentleman has a good experience to report to the House, it is unique.

Mr. Amess: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments. I am quite satisfied to represent one constituency at the moment, although, for 14 years, I represented another. I am not prepared to get involved in the local matters of other hon. Members. I simply make the point that, throughout my time in this place, I have campaigned for the privatisation of British Rail and, in Essex—an important part of the country—people are delighted with the privatisation of British Rail. I just wondered whether the Leader of the House has plans to renationalise British Rail.
My third point concerns Southend borough council and Essex county council. I must be very careful with my language, because I am only too well aware of what has been going on in the House since 1 April. The Prime Minister is being fed completely inaccurate briefing. It is absolutely disgusting that the Labour party in the House thinks that it can blame everything that is unsatisfactory in Essex on the Conservative administration since 1 April, while the Labour Government, who have now been in

office for more than a year, are not prepared to accept responsibility for anything that goes wrong. We hear endlessly about the Conservative Government—

Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman says that the trains now run well in Essex, and the Labour party should take the blame. Should not the Labour party therefore take the credit for the punctuality of the trains?

Mr. Amess: I should be delighted if the Leader of the House would come to the Dispatch Box and say that privatisation has been a great success and that Her Majesty's Government will take the credit for that. Unfortunately, the record in Hansard will prove that the Labour party fought the privatisation of British Rail from the very outset.
As I was saying on the subject of Southend borough council, a little while ago we had a by-election in Southend. We won the Chalkwell seat from the Liberal Democrats, so Southend borough council now has 19 Conservative, 13 Liberal Democrat and seven Labour members. Thus, with their majority of one, the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties together vote everything down. Interestingly, since Southend became a unitary council, the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties have voted for an increase in social service charges, which will come into effect on 1 June. The cost of meals on wheels will rise by a third, and home care charges, about which we heard endlessly before the Labour party assumed government, will rise by 70 per cent. Home care charges are being increased from £6.20 to £10.50 a week, and meals on wheels charges are being increased to £1.80 for a main meal. The Conservatives voted against all those rises.
None the less, the Labour Member of the European Parliament has been running round Essex petitioning people to sign up because of changes that the Conservatives in Essex county council have imposed since 1 April. Not a word has been said by the Liberal Democrats locally or nationally about the disgusting increases in social service charges in Southend, but plenty has been said about Essex county council, and plenty has been said from the Dispatch Box in the House. It is disgraceful.
On education, the main platform in Essex and Southend, the Labour party has broken its promises. Class sizes in my constituency are going up all the time. Some 1.3 million primary school pupils are in classes of 31 or more, which is the highest figure for 20 years. That has happened not as a result of 18 years of Conservative government, but because of Labour and, to an extent, Liberal Democrat party policies.
Westborough school, in my constituency, is the largest primary school in Essex, with more than 800 children, and the headmistress does not even have a room from which to work. All the schools in my area are full. Many parents come to my surgery to complain. Parental choice cannot apply to them because the nearest secondary schools with vacancies are about four miles away.
In terms of local government, will the Leader of the House say what the Labour party will do to rectify the problem in my constituency, given that the local authority, which has become a unitary authority, is controlled by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties?
Incredibly, the Government allowed for increases of only 0.5 per cent. across all services, although inflation went up to a six-year high yesterday. The Prime Minister


has the cheek to come to the Dispatch Box and pretend that the Conservatives are to blame for changes since 1 April. Every week, different figures are used by Labour Members in the House, so I am delighted to put the record straight. We should compare the Conservatives' spending proposals since 1 April with those of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, which cut education spending in real terms by £12 million last year. The Conservatives in Essex are spending £12 million more on social services than the Government set out in the standard spending assessment, and they have to deal with the dreadful mess left by the previous administration under which a huge amount was raided from our reserves.
My final point relates to young people. On Monday, I had the privilege of participating in an all-party forum that was organised by Essex county council. Young people aged from seven to 17 put their points to parish councillors, councillors and Members of Parliament, which was worth while.
I am the vice-chairman of the all-party scout and guide group. Last week, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) and I visited Baden-Powell house. We met the international secretary of the scouting movement, who shared with us a comprehensive programme to cater for the needs of young people in today's society.
The programme has a global educational background and I should like to share with hon. Members a few of the movement's thoughts. It believes that young people, first, should develop themselves to test their abilities and to discover the world around them, in whatever forum; secondly, require access to knowledge and competence to understand the real world; thirdly, need an active and responsible role in social life; and, fourthly, will acquire status and a stake in society through such a role.
Although some people may smirk at that, I believe that the scouting and guide organisations do a magnificent job. A huge army of volunteers are offered an opportunity to learn beyond the traditional boundaries of formal education. The organisations base their strategy on four pillars: learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together, and learning to be. They offer an environment in which non-formal education can flourish and, in today's society, where there are more dangers than ever before, non-formal education is an essential part of the education process. The scouting organisation believes that schools teach more and more, but, in some respects, educate less and less; that families give more freedom, but not more autonomy; and that we teach the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.
Many local authorities throughout the country are trying to launch youth initiatives. I praise Leigh parish council, which is the only parish council in my constituency, and congratulate its first chairman, Councillor Mike King, his successor, Councillor David Johnson, and the current chairman, Councillor Mike Dolby, on their initiatives to promote and encourage young people.
I hope that every hon. Member will take careful note of the Whip this week, because, thanks to the hospitality of Madam Speaker, the scout and guide organisations will enjoy a tea party in her state apartments on 18 June. Perhaps newer hon. Members are not aware that every hon. Member is entitled to invite scouts, guides, beavers

or rainbows from their local organisations to enjoy the hospitality of the Speaker. On that non-controversial note, I hope that hon. Members will agree with my sentiments and do everything they can to support our annual tea party.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that hon. Members will wish Madam Speaker well on the 25th anniversary of her election to the House. It should be a glorious day for her, as the sun is shining.
I want to speak about something radical and different—the reorganisation of police forces. Crime knows no barriers, and there is a great opportunity to consider restructuring. Police officers do a tremendous job in impossible conditions: resources are badly stretched, police officers are thinly deployed—they are the thin blue line—and there appears to be an impossible conflict between targeting major crimes and providing essential community presence and service locally.
The solution to that conflict of interest lies in reorganisation of the structure of our police force. I should like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider reforming the police structure to make it similar to that used by many other nations, especially on the continent, where there is two-tier policing. We would benefit from regional policing and local policing by a district police force.
Regional development agencies are being discussed, so there is no better time to consider reorganisation of the police force structure. There could be a north-west police force instead of the existing five forces, five chief constables and several assistant chief constables, which is a costly way to administer the area. In addition, we could provide community policing at local level with the introduction of local forces. Instead of separate county forces, pooled resources in one region would achieve a greater police force, with more officers being employed in the fight against crime.
Police forces no longer reflect crime areas. Using the motorway network, criminals can be in different counties in minutes. The north-west is best placed with motorways and has a good network of roads. Logistics ensure that people can be here, there and everywhere in a short time, but also that crime moves throughout the region. The north-west is not unique, however. In the south-east, for example, the M25 gives mobility to criminals.
The police force structure should be reorganised to reflect the new regional nature of crime patterns. That should involve rationalisation of the county constabularies, which were established when car ownership was low and crime was locally based. We should consider a single chief constable for each region. What person would be better for such a post than the chief constable of Lancashire, who is doing a wonderful job? We must consider the great specialism within the force and achieve even greater professionalism.
Chorley is between Greater Manchester and Merseyside. A gang from a neighbouring force area could commit a series of burglaries in Chorley and be back home in half an hour—and back in an area covered by a different police force, which makes it difficult to track such criminals. The region has shrunk with the advent of mass car ownership, so I want a force that is more co-ordinated and can share operations and intelligence much more closely.
We should consider air support. The Cheshire force has an aeroplane, and the Merseyside, Lancashire and Greater Manchester forces have helicopters, but I believe that the Cumbria force has neither. What could be better than them combining and developing their resources in a north-west region? Instead of competing with each other, they could position that air supremacy to be better deployed to deal with crime.
Sharing expensive resources would allow costs to be redirected into other operations. Police horses, which are an important part of policing, put a presence on the streets, but each force has its own horses. Instead of each force in each region having separate mounted divisions that are not used daily, would it not be better strategically to position mounted sections and move them to wherever they are required? I shall forward those ideas not only to the Home Office, but to the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales and the Police Federation, the people on the ground with expertise.
I think that all hon. Members would agree that community policing is important. Although I wish to maintain a highly motivated, highly efficient police force, that should not detract from the presence on the ground and in the community. Sir Paul Condon has stated that there is no longer a place for the bobby on the beat. That is not acceptable, and I do not believe that anyone supports that. Highly visible policing makes people feel secure, comfortable and able to relax in the community in which they live.
Perhaps, as a complement to the more specialised regional force, district police forces might be set up to concentrate on lower-level crime in the local community. For example, if a car radio is stolen, it is expensive for a constable to come round and, more often than not, people are given a crime number over the phone. A new generation of district police forces could deal with minor crimes such as a kiddie's bicycle being stolen, vandalism and petty theft. People feel that such crime should be covered and they would feel more secure because they would have a district policeman, not someone who has had specialised training and is a community policeman, who is with them for 18 months and is then moved when he is suddenly asked to train in another specialism or when the CID takes him for 12 months.
We do not have that community identity, that link with the bobby on the beat. We should re-establish that and this is a way. The Home Secretary talks about truancy and the police taking children back to school, but, to be realistic, that is impossible unless we can generate a new police force. There were many arguments when traffic wardens were introduced. People said that, by putting tickets on cars, they took away the rights of the police, but traffic wardens have proved to be successful. Without them, the roads would be clogged and we would not have been able to manage.
We have an opportunity to develop a district police force. It could give an enhanced role to the special constabulary, which performs an important, much-needed and valuable function, and which could be expanded to help police local communities.
It is farcical that highly paid, highly trained police inspectors in traffic divisions spend their time changing the film in Gatso speed cameras or setting up speed traps. Surely someone else should be doing that job.

Local police forces would have the time and resources to make our local areas safer. Local police officers would have a better opportunity to build a rapport with the local community, improving relations between the local bobby, residents and local businesses, and having a specific knowledge of local trouble spots and problems.
In addition, a reorganisation would provide the opportunity to establish a national force for the motorway network, coverage of which varies greatly from county to county. It is interesting is that, when I go up the M6, I go through Cheshire, and, within minutes, I am in Merseyside and, again within minutes, I reach Greater Manchester and Lancashire. Surely the policing of different counties covering small sections of the M6 is not viable and should be examined. Crime on motorways does not take place in just one county area.
Those suggestions would require much work. I hope that the Home Office will look at them carefully and establish an all-party working group to look into new policing in the next millennium.

Mr. Alan Clark: I should like to address the House on the subject of the nine volumes that have been compiled by English Heritage cataloguing 1,500 grade 1 and grade 2 listed buildings that are deemed to be at risk. I must declare an interest as I am the owner of a grade 1 listed building. That building has been identified in the directory. I ask the House's indulgence because not only am I speaking from personal experience, but, having been "named and shamed", I can try to illuminate from personal experience what exactly is involved.
I think that we would all agree that naming and shaming is a dubious practice at the best of times and never more so than when practised by the Government or one of their agencies.

Mr. Eric Forth: Or a diarist.

Mr. Clark: I named, but did not shame. My right hon. Friend interrupts me with a flippant reference to my authorship, but I do not think that I have shamed anyone in my life, although often perhaps brought opprobrium on my own head, but that is another matter.
The House will remember with respect, if not affection, a former President of the United States, Mr. Lyndon Johnson. He ran into difficulties before he was President when fighting a primary. It was in a state that was distant from his home and where he was not well known, and he was fighting against a very worthy opponent, a church-going, greatly respected pillar of local society.
Johnson was not making much impact and polling day was approaching. He and his staff had to make a decision. They had a little council of war, of a kind familiar to us all when we are behind in the polls, as to what they should do. Johnson said that they should leak the news that their distinguished and church-going opponent had been guilty of vile and unnatural practices, which I will not identify on the Floor of the House. The entire council said, "We can't do that. No one would believe it and, anyway, it is not true." Johnson replied, "I just want to hear him deny it."
I revert to personal experience. The sub-editor of The Times writes in fairly large type:
Tory MP denies claims he applied for a grant".
An unnamed, unidentified member of staff at English Heritage had said:
We have discussed this with the owner"—
untrue—
there seems to be no resolution at the moment"—
true enough, as there was no discussion—
I think his inquiries have centred on grants.
Note the use of the word "think".
I weary the House with that only because we do not know how many people that has happened to, and they do not have the immense privilege of being able to rise immediately on the Floor of the House to ventilate their view. However, a member of a Government agency is revealing what should be confidential—although, as it never happened, it is even more preposterous. The Times was told:
I think his inquiries have centred on grants",
which I denied. I have never taken a penny-piece from the public purse for anything and never applied for the grant. However, the article goes on:
English Heritage confirmed last night that there was no correspondence on file with Mr. Clark about grants.
In other words, the whole thing was pure invention.
The reason I cite that is that, the charge having been made, the sub-editor can enjoy himself and say, "MP denies it." It is totally bogus and totally without substance, but immediately there is a slight taint in the air. That practice is okay, I suppose, for Fleet street editors. It is standard practice by reporters to say things, get people to deny them and then say, just like Lyndon Johnson, that those people have denied this or that charge. Whether that is appropriate for Government agencies is another matter, as the House may agree. However, English Heritage is unrepentant. That or another spokesman went on to say:
The register is intended to open constructive dialogue"—
not one of my favourite phrases and utterly, as we know, without meaning of any sort—
but if we don't get it, we'll name the names in next year's edition.
The House may, in passing, ask what is meant by "constructive dialogue".
What are owners of listed buildings meant to do when they have been named and shamed? It appears that they are meant personally to spend enormous sums on repairing the degradation, much of which has occurred over centuries. But at whose behest? In my case, at that of some nameless, faceless officials at English Heritage; I have never seen one, to my recollection. A couple of people came to Saltwood and meandered around about 20 years ago. I like to think that we treated them with courtesy. I have not heard from them since; nor have I been given any indication of what I should be doing to avoid being shamed, never mind named.
The House is being indulgent and treating this matter lightly—perhaps I am not doing the subject justice. There are 1,500 buildings listed in this directory as being at risk. In every case where the building is owned privately,

pressure can be put on the owners to take action through legislation passed in this place—by Orders in Council, I believe. If they do not spend what is, in many cases, a virtually unlimited amount, the property can be confiscated. A compulsory purchase order can be issued if the property is held to be in danger.
It is not clear into whose possession the property would then be taken. Would it be taken by English Heritage, the local authority or the state? Would the property then be immediately repaired? Is there an enormous sump of public money with a tap that can be opened to pay for the repair of every building that has been compulsorily purchased? I rather doubt it. We need to know more. Threats have been made in a most pugnacious and menacing way, and we need to know what will happen if we do not engage in "constructive dialogue" within the next 12 months. Big brother will appropriate all the buildings. One could say that if big brother were then to write an endless series of cheques to repair them, a kind of service would be discharged. However, the buildings would be empty, and empty buildings are much harder to maintain than those that are occupied.
English Heritage has got much too big for its boots. Its director is a prominent figure in what is sometimes referred to as café society and he is seen enjoying hospitality in many locations, but what exactly does he want to achieve?

Sir Patrick Cormack: He is the chairman.

Mr. Clark: Is there a director?

Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes.

Mr. Forth: They are all apparatchiks.

Mr. Clark: They are all apparatchiks, and I do not doubt that they all have huge expense accounts.
The House may take the view that the conservation officers employed by local authorities could do most of the work themselves using the Heritage Lottery Fund. They have far greater knowledge and easier access to the buildings within their purview. They could do the work more simply and more cheaply.

Mr. John Bercow: I am not at all surprised to hear that my right hon. Friend has not applied for a grant from English Heritage. Does he agree that he is, in a sense, rather fortunate not to have done so? A number of my constituents have complained to me, and I have reported to the Leader of the House, that they have found increasingly commonplace waits of up to six months before English Heritage determines whether their application for grant in aid is successful. Might that conceivably be because an individual member of staff at English Heritage is preoccupied with leaking inaccurate information about the intentions of my right hon. Friend instead of focusing on the responsibilities of his or her office?

Mr. Clark: I do not want to engage in extended research into the motives of the officials at English Heritage. However, I could claim to be bitterly affronted that someone to whom I have in the past extended


hospitality—if it is the same person—and from whom I never heard again should have suddenly decided that I need to be named and shamed. In addition, that official has spread the extraordinary and, in some ways, mildly defamatory falsehood that I applied for a grant when, by his or her own subsequent admission on being questioned by reporters, there is no correspondence about a grant on file, still less an application.
It remains true and very sad that a number of important listed buildings are decaying. I would not feel comfortable taking money from the taxpayer to repair a building that I live in privately. That would not be appropriate. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider certain points. Hectoring the owners of historic buildings will not improve matters. The majority cannot even afford to do the repairs that they have apparently been asked to do. I have never been asked to do any repairs; I have simply been told that my building is at risk.
The key to preserving old buildings is to keep them in good repair and, where possible or necessary, to find a way for them to earn their keep. Such grants as there were have been cut. I have never had one, as I said. VAT has to be paid at the full rate on repairs, although new buildings are generally VAT free. It cannot be right that if a part of our heritage is at risk, VAT should have to be paid on its repair bills, when that is not the case for a brand new building.
Estate owners are not allowed to offset the cost of repairs to the building against other estate income in assessing their tax. In other words, the building must be an absolutely net liability—it is cum the income tax that has already been paid on the money that will be used to make the necessary repairs. The Finance Bill will end any such relief, so all income from the estate will be taxable and no offset can be made for repairs to any aspect of the building, even if it is listed grade 1 or grade 2.
One does not like to be too party confrontational in holiday Adjournment debates, but this attitude is part and parcel of the distasteful posture adopted by the Government. It is part of the pop culture, cool Britannia ethic that they will live to regret. People are already uneasy with that. This disdain for our heritage is part of a package that has led the Government to have the millennium dome constructed not in marble or granite, so that it could conceivably be a heritage building in future centuries, but in plastic. That is the culture of the image consultant; it is the culture of obsolescence. This is pop culture at its worst—top of the charts one month, bottom of the charts and taking an overdose of narcotics in an Australian lavatory three months later.
That is the culture to which the Government, like it or not, are trying to attach a part of their ethics. It is high time that we rejected that and said that there is a more permanent culture. Theirs is part of the move to modernise—if that is the word—the royal family by dressing the Household Division in fatigues instead of bearskins, even at the birthday parade, by making sure that when the Queen arrives to open Parliament she is wearing a suit, possibly, for all I know, even a shell suit, and by ensuring that she arrives not in a Rolls-Royce, which will not be possible anyway in 10 years, but in a black cab, perhaps. It is part of a deliberate attempt to extinguish our heritage in all its different aspects, a heritage which has illuminated and invigorated our society for so long.
Our heritage is nothing to do with class or with party, but everything to do with the intrinsic nature of what we are as a people. Pop culture is irredeemably opposed to it, and the cool Britannia ethic is distant from it.
I invite the House to consider the matter—the narrow topic—of dealing with heritage buildings, to discover how, consciously or subconsciously—complete with a leaking official in a Government Department, and an attempt to name and shame and to invoke overtones of class division—the matter is part of a total fabric which I believe that the House should reject. I know that many Labour Members would agree with that.

Mr. Mark Todd: I should like to express some concerns about management of the reorganisation of magistrates courts by the county magistrates courts committee in my area, and, more generally, about the lack of guidance of that process elsewhere in the country.
On Monday, Derbyshire magistrates courts committee confirmed its proposal to reorganise the magistrates courts in my county through a private finance initiative. Among its proposals was a proposal to close the court in Swadlincote—which is the only court in the 120 square miles of my constituency.
I realise the need to rationalise courts. Some courts are antique and expensive to run, and others are relatively close together. My concerns fall into five categories, several of which relate to the general process of court reorganisation.
The first category concerns access to justice. The original private finance initiative consultation document issued by my magistrates courts committee sought to define the meaning of "local justice"—words that we often hear used in discussions about how we should run our magistrates courts system. The suggested definition was:
Magistrates drawn from Petty Sessional Divisions sitting in judgement on cases arising in those divisions using accommodation which is reasonably accessible to Magistrates and Court users.
The phrase "reasonably accessible" in the definition is clearly material, and the committee consequently sought to define it, which it did in the following terms:
within 20 miles of the major centres of population that it might serve … and accessible by public transport with a travel time of up to 60 minutes … and within 15 minutes walk from the nearest public transport node".
In earlier correspondence with the committee's chief executive, I attempted to obtain some definition of a 15-minute walk. I can walk a lot further in 15 minutes than many other people can. No attempt was made further to define that term, however.
What about the 60-minute public transport time criterion? I think that we can reasonably assume that the chief executive of the committee was not a regular bus user: he had certainly not chosen to consult the bus timetable for the South Derbyshire area. My constituency is rural; the town of Swadlincote is essentially a necklace of villages; and getting to the bus station is an exercise in itself. It takes 67 minutes to travel from Swadlincote bus station to Derby bus station, which exceeds the time specified by the committee in its consultation document on the key criteria for the siting of a magistrates court—and the 67 minutes does not include the time it might take to find the magistrates court on leaving the bus station.
Was the committee swayed when those facts were drawn to its attention? Regrettably not. The committee took the view that its failure to calculate the times correctly was an unfortunate accident. Although I am sure the committee thought that the 60-minute criterion was quite sufficient to provide for the areas affected by the closure, it miscalculated—and there we are.
My second category of concerns is convenience of access to other components of the justice system. Swadlincote magistrates court incorporates facilities for the probation service, which is thus readily able to make its important contribution to the court process. The court premises also provide the probation service with a local base. However, no proposals have been made on the integration into the court process of the critical role played by the service in the area should the court be closed. It seems likely that a visiting service into the area from Derby will be provided, using currently unspecified premises—at greater cost and less convenience both to existing staff and, more critically, to users of the service.
The Swadlincote court is immediately adjacent to the local police station. Currently, the attendance of the police to act as witnesses and—in very rare cases in my constituency—in other capacities, such as dealing with someone who is misbehaving in the court, is efficiently operated, with police being called from the station as needed. The alternative would involve a substantial increase in police travelling and attendance time. My area is already thinly policed, as the Derbyshire police force is one of the least well funded in the country.
The part of my constituency south of the Trent—the bulk of it, geographically—is policed usually by four to five officers and one sergeant. If we are to chew up substantial proportions of police time by requiring them to travel to and from a court in Derby, we will obviously have fewer police available to deal with issues in our community to which they should be attending.
The third category is community identity. The committee made the assumption that Swadlincote was in some sense a suburb of Derby. That is not how the citizens of Swadlincote view themselves. The bus time probably says as much about that as anything because, if people used the service more often, someone would no doubt have found it worth while to run a faster bus. People do not look towards Derby as the main centre for jobs, entertainment or shopping; they use other urban centres in the area, or choose to stay in South Derbyshire. The mistaken view of the community of which Swadlincote is a part does not seem to have concerned the committee—and I think that such views have been more broadly applied elsewhere in the country.
The fourth category is the importance of the convenience of court users. Only a tiny minority of people ever attend court. In a generally very law-abiding community such as South Derbyshire, only a very small number of people ever attend court—which, in some senses, is part of our problem, as the committee has claimed that the court is not used very heavily. We are actually rather proud of that, and do not wish to encourage greater court use because of wrongdoing in our community.
Although only a tiny minority attend court—and then only very rarely, perhaps once or twice in their lifetime—their rights and convenience should not be ignored.

The chief executive of the magistrates courts committee was quoted as saying—and chose not to deny in correspondence with me—that criminals should allow in their activities for the cost of transport to a rather more distant magistrates court; perhaps they should thieve a little more to raise the funds for the bus fare to a court in Derby, rather than Swadlincote.
I drew to the chief executive's attention the fact that court users were not merely those rightly or wrongly accused of offences, but witnesses. We already have a problem nationally in persuading people to give up time to attend court as witnesses. I cannot believe that expecting people in my constituency to spend half a day travelling to and from a court in Derby—in addition to attending the court and waiting to be called—will encourage more of them to bear witness in cases.
Others also attend court. Magistrates handle the distribution of licences of various kinds to perfectly law-abiding people running businesses, and those people want to go somewhere locally convenient, rather than some distance away. I do not see why they should be put to that inconvenience either.
My fifth category of concern is the court premises. I could well understand that there might be concern if those were crumbling and decaying, but they are not. They were opened in 1978 and I readily concede that they are not a thing of beauty—they are an example of the architecture of the time. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) referred to our heritage: I do not think Swadlincote magistrates court will feature in the list in the foreseeable future. I also concede that some routine maintenance would be desirable, but it is nothing serious.
Space is certainly sufficient to allow the separation of witnesses and defendants. One of the key problem areas in cramped, old-fashioned magistrates courts is that witnesses and defendants have to sit together, which can occasionally cause some friction. That is not the case at Swadlincote court. Also, the cells are appropriate for their purpose, although I would not say that they are luxurious. So, there would be appear to be no structural reasons to close the premises.
In addition, the local district council, having identified cost as one of the issues that might concern the magistrates courts committee, has said that it might be able to contribute towards the cost of the building by leasing it from the committee for training activities and so forth, thus supplementing the income drawn from the building.
Clearly, the proposal is ill founded and I very much hope that the paying authorities, Derbyshire county council and Derby city council, will not endorse it when they decide their position. The project will also be expensive—this is not a PFI that will save us a lot of money.
The proposal also raises some general concerns. First, I urge the Lord Chancellor's Department to review the rules under which magistrates courts committees operate. In this case, the committee has invented its own rules and then broken them. I am unhappy about that process in Derbyshire and would be surprised if it were unique in the country. I want the rules under which the committees operate when they consider the reorganisation of court premises to be reconsidered.
Secondly, I want a review of the way in which my magistrates courts committee, having drawn up a PH document that made specific pledges on public access to the new court premises, has chosen in its proposal to break that promise. The Lord Chancellor's Department should also consider that matter and ask for an explanation from the chief executive of the courts committee as to its behaviour in this matter.

Mr. David Heath: I wish to draw attention to a number of concerns that have been expressed to me by constituents in Somerset, which I know to be matters of concern to a great many people. There is growing discontent—one might almost say resentment—at the emerging discrepancies between the rhetoric of the Government on so many issues and the reality of what is happening in rural counties such as Somerset. As is often the case, the issues are not at the forefront of the political debate in this country, but nevertheless they are important to me and to my constituents.
I would not ascribe particular motives to Somerset electors a year ago, but I well understand their feeling that things had to change markedly. They had certainly lost confidence in the Conservative Government's ability to provide the sort of services and quality of life that they wanted and to which they aspired. The feeling of optimism at a change of Government has quickly been overtaken by a feeling that we have simply had 19 rather than 18 years of Conservative government. That is a shame. I am not ungenerous to the Government, who have done a number of admirable things in their year of office. There are areas in which I would whole-heartedly support them, but I feel I must draw attention to the patchiness of the outcome of their performance.
The first and most pressing reason for my addressing the House this morning is the vexed question of household numbers. That has been a contentious issue, and there have been strong expressions of concern from both sides of the House about the rationale and methodology used to calculate those numbers through structure plans and the degree to which that is putting unwarranted pressure on green-field sites and rural counties such as Somerset. Our debates have largely been constructive and I applauded the change of policy indicated by the Deputy Prime Minister in his statement a couple of months ago.
That statement was widely welcomed in my area. We recognise that we have a major difficulty, with which the county and district councils, as well as local people, have been wrestling for the best part of a year or more. The methodology indicates a level of housing requirement that simply cannot be met in a rural county without vastly expanding villages, extending the fringes of small market towns, eating into the countryside and creating an environment different from that which we have enjoyed historically—in other words, suburbanisation. We do not want that, and for good reason: it is not nimbyism or simply a reluctance to embrace change. We certainly want the houses that are needed for the local community, but we do not see the need to destroy the rural environment simply to accommodate aspirational developments to provide more and more high-cost housing so that people can move into the area, with no benefit to the local economy. That is a proper concern.
We thought that we had made progress. I entered a caveat when the Deputy Prime Minister made his statement, asking how it would change what was happening since a draft structure plan was being discussed and, having considered the matter carefully, the county council had rejected the idea that 50,000 homes was a sustainable level of development in Somerset and cogently argued the changes to the methodology that we believed were required. The council had brought the number down to 44,300, which was still too high to be accommodated within a rural county, but nevertheless was nearer to what people felt was appropriate. That proposal had still to be considered at an examination in public, however, and no change in Government policy had yet happened, despite the declaration of intent by the Deputy Prime Minister. I suggested that one way out of the dilemma would be to freeze the structure plan to enable the Government to put in place the policies that they wanted before they became locked into a forward structure plan that would extend to 2011 and lock in place unacceptable changes in the structure of the county.
Sadly, my plea fell on deaf ears. The examination in public has proceeded and, to our astonishment—I think the astonishment is shared by members of all parties in Somerset and independent observers of the scene—the inspector has not only rejected the view strongly expressed by all representatives of the local community that the 44,300 figure in the structure plan was too high and would have to be changed to accommodate the Government's new policy, but has replaced that figure with a new one of 51,600, which is higher than the number first thought of, and an increase of 16 per cent. How can that be reconciled with the Government's change of policy? What is the point of having debates in this Chamber and of Ministers making statements if the reality on the ground is that unsustainable increase? Whatever their political backgrounds, Members of Parliament who represent Somerset constituencies—and, indeed, members of the local authorities—want to press that point strongly. The argument is not yet over, but I ask the Leader of the House to consider how we can change the course of the policy juggernaut that seems to be out of the Government's control.
The simmering discontent that I mentioned is also felt about education. I believe that the Government have changed the rhetoric on education and have genuinely sought to provide additional resources, although it is a matter of political debate whether those resources have been sufficient or allocated quickly enough. However, the reality in some parts of the country is that there has been no change—teachers are still being laid off and class sizes are still being increased. The patchiness of provision means that, in some areas, it seems as though the Conservative Government have not gone away.
There are technical arguments about why rural counties lose out under the current formulation. We call the iniquitous area cost adjustment the tax on the west, although I suspect that the right hon. Lady regards it as a tax on the north—

Mr. David Kidney: And on the midlands.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman rightly includes the midlands. I see no reason why, simply because of where they live, our children should be funded at a substantially lower level than children in the home counties. We face


higher costs in rural areas—we have to accommodate the school transport bill, and we have smaller schools, whose unit costs are high, because there is no easy access to centres of population. We accept all that, but we want a fair deal from the Government—we want the Government to recognise the fact that the local authorities are having to spend vastly in excess of the standard spending assessment because of the additional costs. We do not want our local authorities to be capped, and we do not want to be told that we are receiving more money when we are not and when schools are still losing ground.
Agriculture is facing the greatest recession that I can remember. In the south-west, the incomes of dairy farmers have fallen by 35 per cent., and those of sheep and beef enterprises have fallen by 65 per cent.—that is a colossal drop. Again, I do not lay all that at the Government's door, but the Government should respond positively. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does his cause no good by failing to turn up, for the second year running, to the Royal Bath and West show, where he would have been able to talk directly to west country farmers about their plight.

Mr. Todd: The hon. Gentleman says that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should respond more positively. Will he give an insight into what that actually means?

Mr. Heath: I should happily do so at length. We are debating the common agricultural policy tomorrow, when some of the issues can be discussed, but I am particularly concerned about agrimonetary revaluation—I first mentioned the subject in the House last July, I think. There is a serious problem with the green pound. I accept that the Government have moved some way on upland farmers, but they seem to reject the idea that there is any difficulty in the lowlands. The small farmers on the Somerset levels are not rich—they have smallholdings and are struggling to make ends meet with relatively few cattle—yet they are not included in the schemes because they happen not to live high enough above sea level. There is no logic in that. The Government seem to think that the lowlands can look after themselves, but I am saying that they cannot—people in those areas face real difficulties.
I make a small plea—I would have it made on Monday evening, but, unfortunately, I was representing the House elsewhere—about the Somerset and Cornwall Light Infantry. I know that, in the lead-up to the strategic defence review, all hon. Members will want to mention the territorial regiments in their constituencies—it is a commonplace—but I make no apologies for doing so. The Somerset and Cornwall Light Infantry was formed by the amalgamation of two proud regiments, the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry and the Somerset Light Infantry, which goes back to the stormy days of 1685, with which hon. Members who know their history will be familiar. It is the only Army presence in the county, and I believe that it does an extraordinarily good job.
It would be a great shame if the Army were not represented at all in Somerset. I do not believe that that will happen, but the Government should recognise the role of the Territorial Army and its associations with the counties. The process of reduction and amalgamation has

gone far enough; if it continues, we shall lose something that has been of great value to the country for many years and has served us well. I do not dispute that the role of the TA may need to change, but that role should be strengthened in the local community. The reserve forces make an important contribution to the regular forces in times both of war and of civil emergency.
I believe that some of the changes after a year of the Labour Government have been wholly beneficial, but there is still much more to be done. The funding of services in rural areas is inadequate not only to meet people's aspirations but to meet their needs. I ask the right hon. Lady and her colleagues to ensure that distribution across the country is as fair as the Government's rhetoric would have us believe.

Mr. David Kidney: I have listened with interest to this morning's speeches on the built environment, but I want to return to the theme of youth, echoing the sentiments of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who is no longer in the Chamber, about how we should invest more in the youth of today, as they will be the active citizens of tomorrow. I want to focus on those tens of thousands of children who are looked after by local authorities under care orders. In particular, I shall refer to an event in Stafford over Easter that gives some grounds for optimism about the future care of those children.
Some children are in local authority care for short periods and then return to their families. Others, regrettably, are looked after for many years. When they reach the age of 18 and adulthood, they must leave local authority care. As statistics show, many children are 16 or 17 when local authorities make arrangements for them to move on and to look after themselves. As policy makers, we need to pay more attention to that group. I sometimes fear that society does not feel the urgency of the need to save those people, who are peculiarly vulnerable to homelessness and joblessness, and to becoming victims of crime, drugs and prostitution.
At Easter, I convened and hosted a conference at Stafford college on that very subject. I warmly thank my guest presenters, people of national reputation, who attended to share the benefit of their experience for no remuneration other than their expenses, which was marvellous. They were Martin Ayres, a consultant to the Department of Health, James Cathcart of the National Childrens Bureau, Peter Hardman of First Key, and Janet Manders of the National Foster Care Association.
Every possible local agency was represented that day, from the statutory agencies such as social services, to all the health and education services and right through to the voluntary sector. Some of those present told marvellous stories of the excellent services that they already provide for children and adolescents, but one of the worrying features of the day was that some had not met others and did not know of the marvellous services that they provided. The picture was of fractured rather than complementary services.
One example given by a presenter showed how badly things can go wrong. A social worker told us of a boy who, in the 1990s, was coming to the end of his time in local authority care and was placed with a landlady. They got on well, for once he had a secure home, and he


developed well. His 18th birthday came and went with no official recognition, except for the significant fact that the money stopped arriving. Neither of them understood at first why that was.
By chance, the landlady met the social worker at the market several weeks later. The landlady mentioned that the money had not arrived and the social worker explained that it had stopped because the boy was 18. The landlady rushed home to tell the boy—now a young man—that he should apply to social security for benefit. There was a delay, and she got so fed up waiting for the money that she evicted him. The next time she and the social worker met at the market, neither of them knew where he had got to. That is how things can go wrong.
The situation has improved in Staffordshire, but there are still problems. Under the Children Acts, local authorities can give help to people leaving care beyond the age of 18, but that is discretionary rather than mandatory, so they can wash their hands of young people at 18, either because they do not consider them important or because their funds are so stretched that they consider it better to spend the money elsewhere. More needs to be done nationally.
It is a good start if everyone collects information and makes plans on a common basis, and the Department of Health is trying to ensure that authorities collect the same information and plan in the same way. I am told that nine out of 10 English social services departments now follow the same planning processes and keep the same records. Part of those records consists of the individual care plan for each child under local authority care.
The best care plans should be co-produced with the young people themselves; involve other family members, if possible; try to take account of wider community ties; involve other agencies, such as housing and training providers; be positive about education and health outcomes, which are often overlooked; and, most important, plan for continuity of care, including the leaving of the looked-after system.
The conference at Stafford was very positive and told of collaboration between social services and housing associations to provide suitable housing and training opportunities for care leavers. Employment and careers representatives explained that they were willing to come out of their offices and visit the young people, rather than sitting back and waiting for them to come to the offices.
A good idea arose from the day, and I am taking it up with the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities: if the new deal could be extended to 16 and 17-year-old care leavers—a small number of people, and a marginal additional cost to the new deal—it would be a terrific boost for their support networks.
The conference was not a one-day wonder: the participants agreed to meet again to plan the co-ordination of their services and make them complementary, not fractured. New partnerships were formed before our eyes to maximise the support that can be given to young people. I am pursuing the idea of creating a Staffordshire forum where young people can meet and give their input to the planning of their future care.
Such young people are tremendously disadvantaged. They can help themselves, but they need our help to overcome some unusually large obstacles. Will hon. Members share my zeal and help those people urgently?

Mr. Paul Tyler: The issue about which I want to speak is of national importance, but I am concerned with its parochial, or county, significance. In Cornwall, we have three core industries: agriculture, tourism and the extractive industries. I want to deal with them in reverse order.
Everyone in Cornwall is very sad at the loss of the last working tin mine in Europe. It has gone because of the artificial level of the pound. It has had insufficient investment in the past, but the crucial issue for the industry is the exchange rate.
The holiday industry is equally badly affected by the current exchange rate. I understand that the pound is now quite a bit lower than DM3, but recently it has been as high as DM3.1. Set against DM2.2 just a few years ago, that shows the extent to which the situation is causing difficulties. It is not only manufacturing industry that gets clobbered by the artificial valuation of the pound.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman's argument is extremely important. How does he judge the level of the pound to be artificial? In a free market, do not foreign countries and those who purchase our currency place a value on it that is a function of the competitiveness of British industry and the strength of the British economy?

Mr. Tyler: In that sense, the valuation put on any currency is always artificial; but stability is critical. If the sentiment is such that a currency continually goes up and down and causes huge problems to industry, the Government must deal with that artificiality. If the hon. Gentleman were to advance his argument over a longer period and in relation to some of our major industries, many in his party would disagree fundamentally.
Agriculture is perhaps the most obvious victim of the situation. Farm incomes suffered an appalling collapse in 1997. Most of the reasons for that collapse arose from the policies of the previous Government, but the cumulative effect is such that the present Government must take a long, hard look at what is happening. In 1997, there was a 47 per cent. drop in real incomes on our farms, according to the National Farmers Union. All authorities, inside and outside government, expect 1998 output prices to be well below 1997 prices.
Everyone acknowledges that the core issue is not BSE or the peripheral problems that may be addressed by tomorrow's debate: it is the strength of sterling. Despite a slight weakening in recent weeks, the pound has risen by 33 per cent. against the mark and by 30 per cent. against the franc since the beginning of 1996. The drop in farm incomes is having a huge cumulative effect on investment, not only in farming, but in supply. The prosperity of large swathes of rural Britain is threatened; that is symbolised by a 43 per cent. drop in new tractor purchases, following a 1997 figure already lower than that of 1996. No industry can afford that sort of haemorrhage over a long period. Most commodity prices have shown significant year-on-year falls. Milk prices have fallen from 22.5p a litre to 18.2p a litre, a problem that will not be speedily addressed.
The level of the pound is damaging in several areas. Agriculture is unusual, however, in that the Government have methods to hand to address some of the impact. The


green rate, which affects direct payments to farmers as well as impacting on market prices, can be devastating, as is recognised in the mechanisms available to the Governments of European Union member states, and which several states have used to address the problem.
A difficult situation has arisen because an already uneven playing field is being made even more uneven. Countries that suffer valuation problems similar to ours have taken measures to mitigate the resulting difficulties, but the United Kingdom Government have done comparatively little. Over the next few weeks, more difficulties will arise. The increase in the pound's value during the first half of the year was large enough to trigger a 2.7 per cent. green rate revaluation on 3 May. Unless the pound falls significantly before 1 July, area payments to arable farmers will fall sharply from last year's level, which was not in any case encouraging. For example, payments per hectare for cereal will drop by £15.50 in England.
There have been several recent revaluations of the green pound under EU legislation, so our Government are permitted to pay temporary and degressive compensation to farmers. All other member states that were in the same position have done so, at least up to the extent of their EU contribution. The UK Government have so far applied for only £85 million as part of the December livestock aid package. However, they could have applied over the past 18 months for virtually £1 billion.
Hon. Members who represent rural constituencies appreciate that it is not easy for the Government to obtain such large sums, which have implications for the Exchequer. However, the continuing refusal to add to the aid paid to beef and sheep farmers in December 1997 is causing hardship to tens of thousands of farmers and their families all over the country, and to many ancillary industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to farmers in that category in Somerset, and it is also true of Cornwall.
Even if aid were paid in full, it would go only some way towards addressing the substantial fall in farm incomes. Again, I stress that, by allowing the problem to continue, not only the Government, but their predecessors, have built up a huge backlog that will be difficult to deal with. Even if the full sums were made available, they would not completely offset the loss that the industry has suffered, although they might provide a softer landing.
Some of the sum can no longer be paid, because EU approval must be sought within a year of revaluation. If the previous Government had taken the initiatives open to them, we might be in a better position, but the present Government could obtain about £424 million—half from the EU, and half from their own resources.
The Government's decision not to join economic and monetary union from its inception on 1 January 1999 will mean a continuing need for agrimonetary arrangements. More importantly, the freeze on the green rates of the UK and other countries, as applied to direct payments, will cease from that date. Unless steps are taken to offset change, British farmers' receipts will reduce by a further £165 million in 1999, and by £235 million in 2000. In view of likely developments in market receipts and costs, that will be a further severe blow to rural Britain.
The beef sector faces specific problems after two desperately difficult years since the fateful announcement by the previous Government on bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. There has been a welcome and sustained recovery in the home market, but beef farmers are suffering a double squeeze because of increased imports. Perhaps not all hon. Members appreciate that the strong pound is a major problem—not only does it affect how farmers obtain their income; it subsidises beef imports. Our inability to export makes that a double whammy. The strength of sterling has made the UK an attractive market for beef from other EU countries, just when our producers are handicapped by the additional costs of our having the safest beef in the world because we have the greatest safeguards.
I return briefly to the holiday industry, which is of equal importance to Cornwall. Over the next few weeks, would-be holidaymakers from Berwick, Brecon or Bermondsey will compare the prices of holidays offered in brochures for Cornwall and the Costa del Sol. They will find a huge disadvantage in staying in the UK because of the way in which sterling has moved. Worse still, the Germans, the Dutch or the French who consider coming to Cornwall this summer will reach the same conclusion, and they will also find it difficult to ignore the discrepancy between value added tax rates. We shall receive fewer visitors from the continent this summer than we should because of the strength of sterling, and the VAT position will make that worse. Meanwhile, UK holidaymakers will be more attracted than ever to the continent.
Cornwall has three great industries, and each of them is disabled by the artificial value of sterling. I hope that the Government will address that matter. The wringing of hands that we have had from those on the Treasury Front Bench has not given much encouragement. Along with all hon. Members who represent great manufacturing industries, I ask the Leader of the House and her colleagues to consider the impact of the strength of sterling on the extractive industry, the holiday industry and, above all, agriculture.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a subject of enormous national importance and of special relevance to my constituency. I refer to the review of the fiscal regime that is applied to our offshore oil and gas industry, which is being carried out by the Government. I am not a taxation expert and I do not intend to take the House this morning through a mass of complex financial data, which the Treasury is no doubt evaluating.
My purpose is, first, to draw attention to the wider repercussions for the United Kingdom of applying significantly higher taxes to our oil and gas industry. It is essential that the Treasury does not simply take a narrow fiscal view. My second purpose is to explain that the industry no longer offers the easy pickings for the Treasury that many long thought there would be.
The review has been delayed. The Government announced early on that they would review the industry. Many people felt that some proposals would be announced in the last Budget, but the review is taking a long time. I hope that that signals a recognition that this is a complex issue and that the industry is not a simple


cash cow. However, the delay is creating some drawn-out uncertainty for the industry that is not good, especially as the latest round of applications for licences to explore parts of the sea around our shores is taking place. Companies are having to bid almost blind. To that, we have to add the current moratorium on gas-fired power stations. I understand why that has come about. We have to consider the coalfield communities and the future of coal, but I remind the House that there are what might be termed oil and gas communities, too.
First, let me talk about the importance of the oil and gas industry to our country. It may be true that only 31,000 people are directly employed by oil companies, but 350,000 people are employed in the industry if one includes all the contractors and suppliers and many small and medium enterprises, right down to the tiny family firms that are involved in the business.
Shell alone is investing about £2.5 billion a year in the industry. We hear from time to time of £200 million, £300 million and £400 million investments by Japanese corporations and we rightly get excited about them, but let us put that beside the enormous annual investment by the oil companies. Three quarters of the investment is spent in the United Kingdom, benefiting the country. The oil and gas industry represents about 20 per cent. of national industrial investment. We are dealing with something big. So it is clear that the review requires extreme care. We must be careful not to damage the industry.
It is probably fair to say that the review is being driven by three commonly held views. The first is that big companies can afford to pay more tax. The second is that they were let off lightly by the previous Government, especially in the Thatcher years, and that an opportunity was missed for the nation to reap the fruits of our national resource. The third and most important is that the current fiscal regime is the most benign tax regime applied to the oil and gas industry in the world. I shall deal with those three in reverse.
It is true that the tax regime is the most benign in the world, but North sea oil and gas is also the most expensive to explore and produce in the world. We have deep water, deep drilling and hostile weather and sea conditions. It is also important to say that new higher taxes will not be retrospective but will apply only to new extraction. If ever there was a treasure boat, the previous Government missed it. I do not want to get into that argument; the important point is that the industry is now different from the one of the heady days of the past. The oil and gas industry around our shores is now at a mature stage. There are no great numbers of big fields to come on stream. What is happening is the mopping up of relatively small puddles of oil and gas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to move a few feet along the Bench. Apparently, the microphone into which he is speaking is not working and people cannot hear him.

Mr. Blizzard: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have never known anyone to suffer that before.
Oil and gas extraction in the North sea is continuing because we have developed new technologies that give access to those reserves of oil and gas that it was

previously thought impossible to obtain economically. That is being done on the back of the existing infrastructure. The areas now being explored to the west of Shetland are extremely difficult to access. The conditions are very adverse.
As we approach the 30th anniversary of the industry, it is worth remembering that, 10 years ago, it was thought that, by now, the industry would be packing up and leaving. The fact that it is not is due to the benign tax regime that we have been discussing. If the industry were pulling out now, we would be leaving behind valuable natural resources. We would be wasting a finite resource. We would be leaving behind most of those 350,000 jobs. So taking out from the earth what was previously thought uneconomic to extract is good eco-management. That would not have happened if we had had a much harsher tax regime.
As things stand, we have a bright future. We can look to 30 more years of the industry and of high value to our national economy. That is good news for constituencies such as mine, but it can be achieved only as long as we do not jeopardise it by introducing a new fiscal regime that could have the effect of shortening that period and bringing forward the time when the oil companies pack their bags and move on.
The present level of tax has encouraged the extension of the life of the industry. The Exxon Corporation, through Esso, in its worldwide operation has invested a disproportionately high amount of its capital in the United Kingdom, matching that of Shell, with which it is a partner in exploration. That has been good for the United Kingdom.
As for the view that the large companies are easy targets and big international organisations, increased taxes would not hit those companies. They could simply change their investment pattern. There are plenty of other places in the world where they could go and find oil and gas. The people who would be hit are British contractors, and that means British jobs and companies large and small such as those in my constituency.
The British contractors in the oil and gas business have been a huge success story. What was once thought unextractable is now in production. That is as a result of the development of new technology such as floating production and storage vessels, innovative drilling, remote control drilling and advances in health and safety and environmental issues. Our contractors have become leaders in the world. They have had to be in response to the difficult conditions to be found in the North sea. Their expertise, skill and technology are now being exported all over the world. British companies are winning contracts all over the world. There are jobs for British people all over the world. There is a great opportunity to continue that for up to 30 years to come as long as we do not have a fiscal regime that discourages it.
I said that the subject was of special relevance to my constituency. The mainstay of the local economy of Lowestoft, my main town, is the oil and gas industry. We have lost our traditional industries. We all know what has happened to fishing. Where once we had dozens and dozens of trawlers and hundreds of small boats, we are now down to no more than 10 trawlers and a few dozen small boats. Lowestoft once had two shipyards. Brooke Marine was a famous one. The last famous vessel built there was Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic craft. We


had two canning factories—one called the Co-Op, with its brand name of "Waveney", the river which gives the name to my constituency. We had Eastern Coachworks, which used to build Leyland coaches. That has closed. We had Bally shoes. That has closed. Our only gain has been the oil and gas industry, which has been a saviour locally.
We have the headquarters of Shell's southern fields operation, which provides high-quality white-collar and high-tech work and is one of only two high-volume sources of such employment in my constituency. We have Odebrecht SLP, a fabrication company: people who come to Lowestoft ask what the blocks of flats being built in the harbour are and the answer is that they are accommodation modules for oil platforms. The benefit of that industry is that it has taken up some of the skills that were previously used in the shipyards. We have a company called KYE, which is a real local success story, having grown from being a family business into a company employing hundreds of people. It provides all sorts of services to the oil and gas industry and now exports its products and people all over the world. All those businesses are highly competitive, but we also have a college of further education that is submitting a bid to become an information technology centre of excellence, to provide high-tech training in the oil and gas industry. That is an exciting prospect and a successful bid would be good news for our town.
However, all those opportunities have not replaced all the jobs that were lost and we still have an unemployment rate of about 9 per cent. We look to the new Government to regenerate our area, especially through the regional development agency. We shall, in due course, apply for assisted area status and European funds. Since my election, I have pressed for improved roads to help increase the competitiveness of local industries. All that is a difficult task but we must not put at risk what we already have. Across the country, there are towns that, like Lowestoft, have little else but the oil and gas industry and, without that industry, the Government would face problems such as increased benefits payments to add to the already high bill. I hope that the Treasury will take the big picture into account when it makes its tax calculations.
It is not only my constituency that has this interest. A map has been drawn up showing all the constituencies colour coded according to employment levels in oil and gas. The black constituencies are those with more than 5,000 employees and the red are those with more than 1,000 jobs in the industry. The map has a lot of red, some black and a lot of orange, for areas with more than 500 jobs; there is not as much red as on the political map of the country, but the map shows that the industry spreads across hundreds of constituencies and throughout the country.
Nationally, the Government are committed to stimulating and supporting businesses and encouraging growth and investment. They have cut corporation tax and are reforming capital gains tax and the Department of Trade and Industry is setting up the export forum. All that effort to support business must not be undermined by damaging one of our major industries. If the Government get the tax review right, we shall have an industry with a 30-year future and there are few industries that can make that claim in the global economy of today. The Government must get it right. We have an opportunity

to lead the world in the development and export of new technology, but that process needs the right fiscal climate in which to thrive.

Mr. Eric Forth: My request of the Leader of the House is that she considers urgently referendums and the way in which they have become part of our political process. I am increasingly worried by the frequency with which the Government resort to referendums and by the lack of thought that has gone into the way in which referendums are used as part of our political process.
We have all become used to the process: the Government have an idea about change of some sort, usually constitutional change; public opinion is softened up, although details may or may not be provided as to the nature of the changes to be made; the question is put and an announcement is made of overwhelming support for whatever was proposed. That announcement is made regardless of the turnout achieved or the size of the majority achieved among those who did bother to vote—a widely varying pattern has emerged in that respect. My question, which urgently requires an answer, is whether that is a legitimate or valid political process. The answer depends on several key factors, none of which has yet been satisfactorily addressed. My contention is that the Government, who have resorted so frequently to the mechanism of the referendum, have not given serious thought to the way in which that political device is used or to its potential effects.
We all know how crucial is the question. The outcome of a referendum depends to a large extent on the question put, and the most recent example is that of the London referendum. There was much debate about whether there should be two questions—"Should we have a mayor?" and "Should we have an executive body or assembly?"—but the Government cleverly decided to put those two separate questions together in a single question. Many of us argued that that was the wrong approach, which invalidated the process because the proposal involved two quite separate new political entities for London, but the Government insisted that only one question be asked. They got a yes answer on an extremely low turnout, despite the fact that little detail was given of what sort of powers were to be exercised or the relationship between mayor, assembly and boroughs.
That problem became even more obvious in the Scottish and Welsh referendums. The only question put to the people of Scotland was, "Do you want a new Parliament?" but no reference was made, except in the broadest terms, to the relationship that might exist between that Parliament and any other constitutional body. Crucially, the people of Scotland were not asked, "Are you content with a one-chamber Parliament? If you are to have a separate legislature for Scotland, would you not prefer to have the constitutional and legislative security of a two-chamber mechanism, whereby there would be a safety mechanism available?" In the Welsh referendum, the people of Wales were not asked, "Do you want a strong Parliament of the sort proposed for Scotland, or are you content to have a much weaker body, which looks like a gesture assembly?" My point is that the question asked is always crucial and that, more often than not, the really important questions are not asked at all. They are assumed or subsumed into a single question,


so that the people are not given the opportunity properly to consider the issues put before them or what other options might be available.
The next consideration is the vexed one of thresholds. Do we believe that any referendum on constitutional change in our country will legitimise that change by a simple majority of yes votes, regardless of the number of people who choose to turn out and vote? Is abstention to be seen as a positive political statement or as an expression of indifference? The classic example is the London referendum, in which only one in three Londoners bothered to vote. I should have thought that that turnout was in itself a statement of the indifference of two out of three Londoners to the question being put, yet the result was hailed by the Government as an overwhelming triumph and an endorsement for their proposals to change the whole basis of London government for some time to come.
Even more important is a question that might surprise some hon. Members: who should be asked? That might appear to be self-evident, but I resent the fact that the people of England were never asked for their views on matters relating to Scotland or Wales. Questions crucial to the future of the United Kingdom were asked, yet the vast majority of the population and the electorate of the United Kingdom has not, to date, been asked for its view on the issue of giving greater powers to a Scottish Parliament or to a Welsh assembly. The English people will be affected and are to be the paymasters for the whole process, but they have not been asked whether they want the process to continue, or whether they are prepared to continue to pay for it.
That argument even applies to the London referendum. London residents were asked, but the millions of people who travel to London, who work in London and who sustain London in many ways were not given an opportunity to express their views, even though their way of life might be seriously affected by the decisions taken by a London mayor and assembly. The answer to the question of who should be asked has not been properly thought through.
The timing of the question is always crucial. We should consider whether it should be entirely at the discretion of the Government of the day, as the timing of the referendum usually has a distinct bearing—or at least an influence—on its outcome.
One could draw many conclusions from all this. My preferred conclusion is that we should never use referendums; I doubt that they are a proper, valid or legitimate way in which to settle complex questions. For those who argue in favour of them, I shall review the deal that I make on such occasions and say, "I might be persuaded if you would grant me a referendum on the restoration of capital punishment—a subject that has long been close to my heart." If we are all agreed that referendums are to be a key mechanism of political decision making, why not hold one on that subject? Even that would raise the questions that I have mentioned. The choice of question would be crucial—a matter of life and death in some cases.
A question also arises about the irreversibility of referendums. Once a matter has been determined by that, in my opinion, dubious political mechanism, should there be a minimum period before the question may again be put? When will we be allowed to ask the people of

Scotland—and, I hope, in future, England—whether they believe that it was a good idea to have a separate assembly, a completely new bunch of politicians, more levels of bureaucracy, more expense, salaries, offices and so on? When will they be asked again whether that was really what they wanted? Supposing, as a result of a referendum, capital punishment were restored—as I suspect would be the case were the question to be asked—when could we revisit the issue and ask again whether people wanted that?
The political mechanism of the referendum gives rise to so many questions—the way in which it is used, the timing, the content of the questions, even who is entitled to vote—that obviously no thought can have been given to those questions by the Government, as they have decided to resort to the mechanism so frequently to legitimise, or seek to legitimise, their policy proposals.
This is an issue of increasing urgency. The mechanism must be considered seriously, here in the House of Commons, in our Parliament—the only proper vehicle for such consideration. I hope that, very soon—preferably before the Adjournment, but I hold out little of that—the Leader of the House will provide an opportunity for the matter to be properly considered by the House of Commons, before we contemplate using the mechanism again.

Mr. Martin Salter: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this extended Adjournment debate. Whatever modernisation of the House of Commons takes place, I hope that this institution will remain because it is valued, especially by new Members who have discovered the opportunity that it provides.
My short contribution, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), concerns child care, and especially the need to regulate people who work with children in individual private homes—nannies, an awful expression, but one that we are stuck with.
Last week, I had the pleasure of holding a parliamentary reception for representatives from the Playpen campaign. I thank hon. Members who supported that reception, and especially hon. Members who supported early-day motion 1262, which is sponsored by me and the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), in a display of cross-party unity on this issue.
The Playpen campaign was set up last year, in the wake of Louise Woodward's arrest in the United States, when it was recognised that there was an urgent need for Government intervention to protect children, parents and nannies from unscrupulous practices and unsuitable people in the child care profession. Playpen campaigns for the setting up of a non-profit-making, independent national nanny register to check credentials, exclude or deter unsuitable people and protect children from abuse and bad practice. It argues that there should be a requirement to register, which should be a condition of employment, and that the registration process should include checks on an applicant's identity, academic career and qualifications, work career, character and criminal record.
It is incredible that this loophole in the law remains, and was not plugged by the Children Act 1989. Playgroups, nurseries and child minders are registered by the relevant local authority, by the social services


department and so on, but there is no requirement for regulatory controls or registration of people who work in the home of the child's parents. That anomaly must be addressed. There is not even a requirement for nannies, or potential employees who are on a nanny register, to hold a first aid certificate, never mind a professional certificate of qualification.
A recent television documentary highlighted some of the potential abuses in the profession. It showed allegedly reputable nanny agencies sending people into parents' homes without checks and with references that had not been taken up. A pornographer, heroin addict or thief could obtain employment through a nanny agency, and gain the trust of parents and the ability to look after their most precious charges, with absolutely no control, making possible tragedies such as those that occurred in the Louise Sullivan and Louise Woodward cases. That unacceptable situation needs to be resolved before further tragedies occur. We want no more Louise Woodwards or Louise Sullivans.
Playpen has representatives from several reputable organisations, including the Professional Association of Nursery Nurses, based in Derby, and the Chiltern college for nursery nursing in Reading, in my constituency, and from respected child care trainers. I pay tribute to a founder member of Playpen, Cheryl Winton, a wonderful lady whose daughter, Jemma, was brain-damaged by abuse in her own home by an unqualified nanny. Cheryl is determined to ensure that other parents do not go through the private hell that she went through, and I suggest that we have a duty and a responsibility to plug that loophole.
How did we get where we are today? I do not believe that any hon. Member would argue that this situation is tenable and that the loophole does not need to be plugged. As usual, we have to look to the activities of the previous Government, especially the former Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, one Neil Hamilton, who piloted through the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.
I do not believe that the previous Conservative Government set out to deregulate nanny registers. Having studied the record, I am also aware that the Opposition failed to spot the consequences of the 1994 Act. Labour Members made representations in Parliament concerning models, actors, musicians, seafarers and agricultural labourers, but we all missed the consequences of de-licensing—deregulating—employment agencies. Now anyone could set up a nanny register and provide people to work in the privacy of people's homes, with their children.
I am thankful that the climate is changing. I welcome the publication of the Green Paper, "Meeting the Childcare Challenge", and I welcome the fact that the campaign has cross-party support. I also welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Social Security is prepared to meet a delegation from Playpen and that the Green Paper mentions the issue of regulation for all persons involved in child care.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to draw attention to this important issue. I look forward to a response from the Leader of the House and I hope that, as soon as possible, legislation will be introduced, building on the Green Paper.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I urge the Leader of the House not to let the House adjourn for the Whitsun recess until her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a statement in the House on why Her Majesty's Government did nothing to stop the European Union abolishing the sale of duty-free goods to travellers within the European Union from 1 June 1999. The right hon. Lady knows that we had a full debate on the subject on 6 May, and that there was unanimity in the House on the belief that the measure would be highly damaging to jobs in the United Kingdom—jobs in airlines, at airports, in ferry companies and at sea ports. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government proceeded to do nothing to prevent the abolition and the damage which would ensue.
The Government take great pride in their power and influence as holders of the presidency of the EU. At the Economic and Finance Council we saw exactly what that meant—that Her Majesty's Government would connive with EU initiatives and do nothing to protect Britain's interests. It is not as if the UK presidency did not have potential allies at yesterday's Council. There was strong pressure from Germany and Ireland to initiate a study on the effect of the abolition of duty-free shopping for travellers within the EU, and support also from France, Spain and Greece, yet the Economic Secretary sat on her hands and did nothing.
At least the Economic Secretary was following the Prime Minister's lead. In a written answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) yesterday, he put the Government's position clearly. The question was:
To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 1997 … on duty-free shopping, what estimate he has made of the potential number of job losses that will arise from the ending of the trade in duty-free goods; whether, during the UK presidency, the Commission carried out the proposed survey; and if he will make a statement.
The Prime Minister replied:
The Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions has undertaken a study into the effect on the transport sector of the abolition of intra-EU duty and tax free sales in 1999. During the UK presidency, the Commission has not undertaken a survey of the potential number of job losses that may arise from the abolition of duty and tax free sales within the EU. The position of the United Kingdom remains that it would not oppose a study should there be a consensus amongst member states in favour of such a study."—[Official Report, 19 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 315.]
It is noteworthy that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has carried out this study, but we have not been made privy to its contents—indeed, the House was not informed of its contents in the debate on 6 May, as it should have been. At the very least, the Chancellor should come to the House and say that a copy of the study will be put in the Library of the House. Furthermore, under their much-vaunted EU presidency, the Government have done nothing to advance a study by the Commission into the effect of the abolition of duty-free sales.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has the gall to shed crocodile tears. The Daily Telegraph today states:
Gordon Brown, the Chancellor and president of the finance council, surprised many when he voiced regret that his colleagues had not given their backing to its study.
In a belated"—


one can say that—
public conversion to the cause he said: 'I would have preferred a further study of the successor regime and the effect of abolition. I don't like the decision we have made today.'
In other words, the Government cannot lead and cannot exert any influence in Europe. The employment of my constituents who work at Heathrow in the duty-free shops and in the airlines, of which there are many, and their counterparts throughout Britain will suffer as a consequence of the Government's inertia and inactivity as they connive at the EU's job loss creation schemes. Fascinatingly, the EU Commission hailed yesterday's decision as a great success—a great success in doing away with people's jobs and in damaging the profitability of British enterprises, and other enterprises within the EU.
We are told, if the article in The Daily Telegraph is right, that the Commission does not believe that the sale of duty-free goods is compatible with the single market. Duty-free sales exist for travellers within the Mercosur countries in South America, the North American Free Trade Agreement countries and the ASEAN countries in south-east Asia. The Commission wants to abolish them because it wishes to do away with fiscal differentiation—in other words, the power of nation states to set their own tax rates. It wants the EU to behave as if it is already a single fiscal entity—in other words, a single state.
The European Commission says that it will now report on aid programmes that might be available to help areas adversely affected by the abolition of duty free. It seems that, at the Commission's behest, our taxpayers, who may in some instances have lost their jobs because of the abolition of duty-free shopping, will now, through their purses—through their EU contributions—have to provide a subsidy, or a subvention, to areas where jobs have been lost because of the abolition.
That is a classic little vignette. It is a perfect example of how Britain is seeing more and more power going to the EU, how our Parliament is impotent, how even unanimity in the House is ignored by the Government, who kowtow to the EU, and how excellent early-day motions, such as that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond)—early-day motion 1339 on the timing of the abolition of duty-free shopping, which he and I and nine other hon. Members have signed—are ignored. I hope that the Chancellor will come to the House and explain himself.

Mr. Fabian Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to raise an issue of national, regional and local importance; it is certainly of great importance to my constituency. The issue to which I refer is the establishment of a new voluntary-aided high school in Leeds, a Jewish high school, for which many of my constituents have been pressing for a number of years.
The campaign started four years ago, when leading members of the Jewish community, a community which represents the third largest concentration of Jewish people in the United Kingdom, tried to establish, through the local education authority, a Jewish high school.
Previously, Leeds had a Jewish voluntary-aided primary school, Brodetsky primary school, and a Jewish voluntary-aided middle school, Morris Silman middle school. In 1992, the schools in Leeds were reorganised to

do away with the middle school tier. At that time, the LEA applied on behalf of the Jewish community to the Secretary of State for Education and Science—then, I believe, Kenneth Clarke—to establish a Jewish voluntary-aided high school. Unfortunately, that application was turned down.
Since then, the community has set up a charitable trust and has struggled hard to establish that school. In my brief tenure of the office of chairman of the education committee, I tried to further that cause by commissioning a study from Leeds university into the viability of such a high school. That report was published after my election to the House and, unfortunately, my successor did not feel that it made a strong case. That view was different from the one taken by the high school's supporters.
Yesterday, I received the Jewish community's high school proposal, which is to be submitted to the Department for Education and Employment because the community wants it to look at its rational case for that school—and it has many strong supporters.
The mission statement in that proposal states:
The school will:
Teach Jewish pupils the beliefs and practices of the Jewish faith and an understanding of the responsibility for religious and cultural continuity;
Afford the regular opportunity to non-Jewish pupils to worship in their accustomed manner as they choose, and to explore ethics and morality in a wider sense through regular RE lessons;
Instil into all pupils of love of moral behaviour and a genuine respect, rather than a mere tolerance of other religions, races and cultures;
Ensure that our able pupils strive for nothing less than academic excellence, and that our less academically able pupils are given every encouragement to realise their potential and to discover areas of study in which they can develop and grow.
Those are aims to which we would all subscribe.
The school has many strong supporters. The late Councillor Patrick Crotty, Conservative councillor and former chairman of the education committee in Leeds, said that he was
a firm supporter of the right of the Jewish community to educate its children in a Jewish environment.
The office of the Chief Rabbi, of course, supports the establishment of the school and states:
It is the Chief Rabbi's view that Leeds will prove to be a role model for the community with its educational facilities in general and the Jewish High School in particular.
The Bishop of Ripon, the Right Rev. David Young, writes that in principle, he supports the establishment of a Jewish high school where a good case can be made for it, and continues:
1 would be happy to be involved in negotiations with the LEA
if that would be of assistance.
The Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds, the Right Rev. David Konstant, states that
the dual system agreement was a milestone in the history of education provision in this country and established a unique and valuable relationship between public and voluntary bodies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) says that he
fully supports the proposal and understands the reasons why it is necessary.


My worthy predecessor, Sir Keith Joseph—the late Lord Joseph—stated that he could not but applaud the thinking of the proposers and their colleagues. He continued:
There is strong evidence that Jewish schools with the support of Jewish parents produce firstclass education. The fact that you propose that the school be open to non-Jews removes one of the only possible objections.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will respond to my plea to the Government to support the establishment of such a school, which will not only benefit the Jewish community, but further the provision of high-quality education and academic excellence in Leeds. The survey that Leeds university was commissioned to undertake when I was chairman of the education committee in Leeds found that the vast majority of Jewish parents in Leeds and many non-Jewish parents supported the establishment of the school. Of course there is a question about its effect on other schools in the area, but the survey found that many of the pupils who would come to the school were not in the system already. Some of them attended the independent school, Leeds grammar school; some attended schools outside the local authority area, perhaps King David school in Manchester or schools in Liverpool or Harrogate. The establishment of the school would meet the demands of the Jewish community in Leeds for a religious voluntary-aided school, and would contribute to the attainment of the higher standards for which we are all pressing.
I pay tribute to the proposers, including Victor Zermansky, retired solicitor and prominent member of the Jewish community in Leeds, who has pushed for the school for many years and who compiled the document to which I referred earlier, and Dr. Jonathan Bodansky, consultant physician at Leeds general infirmary and chairman of the charitable trust, who has pushed so hard, together with his colleague, Rabbi Ian Goodhardt. Those three men have worked extremely hard for the establishment of the school.
With the existence of Catholic voluntary-aided high schools and Church of England voluntary-aided high schools, it must be right to allow the establishment of a Jewish voluntary-aided high school in Leeds. That would be only equitable and proper. I hope that my right hon. Friend will pass the message on to the Department for Education and Employment so that such a school can be established before much longer.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I cannot speak for the Leader of the House, but I can tell the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) that he has made a powerful and eloquent plea. He cited among his distinguished supporters the late Lord Joseph, when he was Sir Keith Joseph. I add my voice to those. The hon. Gentleman's plea seems to me to be worthy of support. Let us hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to give him some encouragement when she replies.
The debate has been, as such debates always are, an extremely interesting series of pleas from hon. Members in various parts of the House. In responding, it is difficult to be both courteous and thorough. I shall try to be as thorough as possible, but I shall not deal at length with

the speeches of hon. Members who are not in their places. When hon. Members raise subjects in such a debate, expecting a response from the Opposition Front Bench and, much more importantly, from the Leader of the House, it is important that they should be present to listen to what is said.
As was said by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), who is not present, the Adjournment debate is a useful forum. He expressed the hope that modernisation would not sweep it away, and I echo that hope. I am sorry to have to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who seemed to think that there could be a vote. That used to be the case because we could vote on whether the House should adjourn, but we have already approved the Adjournment of the House, and now we are merely having a general debating exercise.
We heard from two Derbyshire Members. From the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) we had a plea for a thorough investigation into the circumstances leading to the leak of sulphuric acid from a tanker, but as he is not present, I shall not deal further with that. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) made an interesting speech about the closure of the magistrates court at Swadlincote. I echo his plea for the operation of magistrates courts committees to be reviewed. As one who comes from a constituency that is likely to suffer in a similar way, I believe that that plea should be heeded by Government. I hope that the right hon. Lady will respond to it.
I refer to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), not to deal with his points about the police force as he is not in his place to hear what I have to say, but to endorse what he said about Madam Speaker. She is commemorating today her 25th anniversary as a Member of Parliament. I am sure that I carry the support of every Member of the House in wishing her many happy returns of the day.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) appealed for co-ordination. We heard the appeal for the co-ordination of police forces in fighting crime from the hon. Member for Chorley, but the hon. Member for Stafford spoke with commendable brevity and lucidity—the hon. Gentleman is my neighbour and had the great good fortune to inherit part of my constituency at the last election—about the need for the co-ordination of care for a particularly important and vulnerable section of the youth community. I pay tribute to him for his initiative in convening the conference to which he referred. He spoke of the desirability of setting up a Staffordshire forum to assist that group, which seemed a sensible plea that would have my support and, I hope, the support of other hon. Members throughout the county.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has become a regular participant in these debates. He spoke about the scouts, and he always comes prepared—prepared to talk about not one or two subjects, but generally at least three and, today, four subjects. We all hope that the scouts' tea party will be well attended. Opposition Members may listen with sympathy to his criticism of the operation of the Labour-Liberal Democrat pact on Southend council, but that will not carry the support of Labour Members. He also made an important point about the style of this Government.
My hon. Friend has raised in the House before, and need make no apology for raising again, the subject of the signing of ministerial letters. I know that the right hon. Lady, who is a person of impeccable courtesy, will agree when I stress the importance of Ministers signing their own letters. Unless a letter is sent as a matter of real urgency—when we all excuse the pp-ed signature—it should bear the signature of the Minister concerned. Some 90 per cent. of such letters are sent on to constituents who are worried about the topic that they have raised. They like to feel that, at the very least, the letter has passed before the Minister's eyes. It is a travesty of the system if letters come couched in fairly evasive language bearing the pp-ed signature. I hope that we shall see far less of that in the future. There are some Ministers from whom it is as rare to find a signed letter as it is to find an unsigned copy of a novel by Lord Archer.
We all appreciate that Prime Ministers bear heavy responsibilities. The Prime Minister bears many at the moment, and we wish him well in his journey to Northern Ireland today. We hope that the result for which he is campaigning will be achieved and that it will be a decisive majority. The Prime Minister goes to Northern Ireland with our total good will. However, as I have said before, he appears far too rarely in the Chamber.
When I first came to the House in 1970, it was common to see the Prime Minister pop into the Chamber to sit and listen to what was said in debate. That practice continued for many years. It was certainly very common to see all the Prime Minister's predecessors, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in the Division Lobby two or three times a week. The Prime Minister has voted in fewer than 5 per cent. of the Divisions that have occurred since 1 May last year, and that is frankly not good enough. It is not acceptable, and I hope that the Prime Minister will heed the advice of those of us who wish to see him more often. After all, he is the Prime Minister of this country and he should attend Parliament as often as his other duties permit. I believe that he is not here as often as he should be—especially in the Division Lobby.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to the discrepancy between the Government's rhetoric and their performance. I agree that there has been a significant discrepancy in that area. I would not be as charitable to the Government as the hon. Gentleman was—but he would not expect me to be. I entirely endorse his plea for a fair deal for the countryside. He talked about the pressures on green-field sites and the way in which structure plans seem to pay no regard to sensitive rural surroundings. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will use all the powers of his elevated office to ensure that we preserve our green belt. A few months ago, he made the immortal remark that the green belt was a Labour achievement and that it was the Government's intention to build on it. I hope it is the achievement that they intend to build on and that the remarks of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will be heeded.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made a skilful speech—he generally does—about the problems for agriculture caused by the strong pound. It was, in fact, a veiled plea for signing up to economic and monetary union tomorrow—but he would not expect me to go along with that. However, I certainly endorse his comments about the need for the Government to make more provision for farmers. He pointed out with real force and

eloquence that existing funds could be made available, and that more could have been done to help the hard-pressed beef farmers in particular. I hope that, in this season of agricultural shows, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—I am sorry to hear that he has not visited the west of England show—will devote some concentrated thought to that matter and follow it with proper action to assist the farmers of this country who have had a very difficult couple of years.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) demonstrated that there is nothing like a constituency interest to concentrate the mind. He talked about the problems faced by the oil and gas industry and made a plea, which any Conservative Member would have been proud to make, for a continuation of sensitive tax treatment. There is more joy in the Chamber over one taxer who decides that he wants to repent than over a thousand who remain wedded to their previous principles. Let us hope that the Chancellor will heed his remarks.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) made an inimitable—as one would expect—and entirely impromptu speech. My right hon. Friend was stung by his "naming and shaming"—as he put it—by English Heritage. He knows all about that because although he said rather disingenuously that in his diaries, he had never shamed anyone, by Jove, some of those about whom he wrote must have felt a little less than chuffed when they read what he had to say about them.
My right hon. Friend made two extremely important points today which deserve the support of all hon. Members. It is quite unacceptable for unnamed officials to leak pseudo information—or even real information for that matter—of the sort to which he referred. My right hon. Friend told a quite appalling story of how he was quoted as denying something that was never an option as far as he was concerned. He also made a powerful plea for mitigating the burden of value added tax. I have campaigned for that for many years. VAT is particularly iniquitous for those who are charged with the maintenance of our historic churches, for instance. It is not fair that they should bear such a large VAT burden. The Archbishop of Canterbury made a speech last year in which he pointed out that more is paid in VAT on repairs to listed churches than is received in grants. That cannot be right.
Although I have taken the point a little further than did my right hon. Friend, his firm endorsement of the need to preserve our heritage should command our support and respect. I particularly enjoyed his comments about the plastic dome. Would that the building being erected to commemorate the millennium were able to stand the test of the millennium and be around for the next one. Many buildings in this country have stood for a thousand years or more, while I suppose that that trumpery piece of tawdry plastic will hardly last a decade.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) talked about the device of the referendum. In Wales and in London, only 25 per cent. of people endorsed a particular scheme, which does not signify massive popular support. I agree with the call by the hon. Member for Reading, West—who is now in his place—for the registration of nannies. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood asked to be informed about the details of the duty free studies, and I warmly associate myself with his remarks. However, if I associate


myself with much more, I shall deprive the right hon. Lady of her ration of time. Therefore, I shall leave it at that.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I shall begin on a note with which I hope the whole House will agree. It is 25 years since Madam Speaker came to the House. Some of us were privileged to present her with a birthday cake this morning on behalf of the House, courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) in his capacity as Chairman of the Catering Committee. I am sure that all hon. Members echo the congratulations that we offered to Madam Speaker.
We heard 13 Back-Bench speeches this morning and I have 12 minutes in which to respond to them. I shall be as thorough as I can, but if I miss some points, I shall write to hon. Members. I begin by echoing what has been said about the usefulness of a debate of this kind. To have three hours when Members can raise any subjects that they want is something that the House would wish to guard. 1 cannot speak for the members of the Modernisation Committee on all aspects of procedure, but I think that we want to preserve opportunities for Members to raise issues in this way.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who is a regular attender of these debates, raised a serious incident in his constituency, at Killamarsh. Obviously, my hon. Friend has not been able to return to the Chamber. He made important points and he asked me to pass his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, and I shall willingly do so. However, action has already been taken to follow up the incident to which my hon. Friend referred. The relevant authorities—the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive—are looking into the causes of the incident and trying to learn lessons from them.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is a regular attender on these occasions, as he was in the previous Parliament when he represented Basildon. The hon. Gentleman raised, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, four different issues. I shall not deal with them all in great detail, but there is one point, ministerial correspondence, that I wish to take up because the hon. Member for South Staffordshire did so from the Opposition Dispatch Box.
Members will know—I know that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire is well aware of this—that I have been taking up cases on behalf of individual Members. The hon. Gentleman may not have seen the parliamentary answer that I gave on Monday in which I stated that further to my comments in the House on several occasions, and in particular on 12 March, I had written to all my ministerial colleagues about the matter, asking them to take action where necessary. Sir Richard Wilson has written to all permanent secretaries asking them to make sure that replies are of high quality and timely.
It is not always possible for Ministers to sign every letter, as is wished by some Members. I hope that Departments that have had a vastly increased volume of correspondence will be able to take action to ensure that Members receive replies as quickly as possible.
I will not go into all the other points raised by the hon. Member for Southend, West, except to say that his boasting about rail privatisation contrasts with the usual questions that I receive at the Dispatch Box and the recent report on the failings of the rail service since privatisation. I know that those failings are of concern to many hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) talked about the possible reorganisation of the police force. My hon. Friend knows that the Government are committed to maintaining an efficient and effective police service. Of course, we are always willing to consider suggestions for improvement. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider any representations that are made to him. I can tell my hon. Friend that at present, there are no plans for a merger along the lines that he is suggesting. I know that my hon. Friend may wish to pursue the matter in other ways.
I think that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said that the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) was inimitable. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was entertaining, as ever. He raised two separate points, one being that grades 1 and 2 listed buildings have been deemed to be at risk and, therefore, have been named so that attention can be brought to that fact. There is nothing wrong with making it clear that there are problems in that area. The Government hope that the register that has been published will alert people to the importance of historic buildings.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not approve of naming and shaming, but I thought that he took the view that all publicity was good publicity. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that there is a real problem with these buildings and that more needs to be done to help them. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not want any financial assistance. However, he then detailed two ways in which he wanted my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give financial assistance for these projects.

Mr. Alan Clark: Not direct grants.

Mrs. Taylor: Not direct grants, but it would be direct financial assistance.
I reject what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Government not being willing to respect our heritage. We have welcomed the list to which I referred because of our respect for our heritage. We need to look to the future and to respect what is good in the past. That applies to changing the House of Commons or respecting buildings.
I take up the important question raised by the right hon. Gentleman about a leak. If there has been a leak along the lines that he outlined and an official has given information to the press in that way—

Mr. Clark: False information.

Mrs. Taylor: If false information or, indeed, any information has been given to the press in that way, the matter will have to be examined. I shall ensure that the relevant Minister is informed of that problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) raised the issue of magistrates courts in Derbyshire and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire mentioned his interest in the matter. There has been a


great deal of discussion and I think that the Derbyshire magistrates courts committee has sought to keep local people informed. At present, there are no plans to change the structure for consultation. However, if people have ideas, they can be passed to Ministers as well.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that the Labour Government had made no difference, but he then gave us support for some of the changes we have made, which he said were wholly beneficial. We welcome the usual Liberal Democrat approach to these issues. We have made significant progress in terms of our commitment to developing on brown-field rather than green-field sites. We are spending more than the Liberal Democrats asked for on education. I shall say more about agriculture when I respond to the comments of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that the strong pound seemed to be the cause of most of the problems in north Cornwall. It is not the case that the Government have not provided help for agriculture; last year, we provided £1.8 billion of support. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that we could have had another £1,000 million from the European Union. He failed to remind us, although he made incidental mention of the fact, that that would have cost the British taxpayer a great deal. The British taxpayer pays 71 per cent. of money that is made available in that way.
I found the comments of the hon. Member for North Cornwall on the pound especially interesting. If he looks back to what his party leader said when the previous Government left the exchange rate mechanism, he will find that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said:
Freedom to devalue is the freedom to suffer inflation, to have lower growth, to decline while others prosper and to boom and bust, just as we have done for the past 40 years."—[Official Report, 24 September 1992; Vol. 212, c. 33.]
It is precisely because we want stability and not a return to that sort of economics that we are making sensible decisions. For the Liberal Democrats now to be the party of devaluation contradicts what the right hon. Member for Yeovil was saying earlier.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made an interesting speech about children in care and their long-term needs. I think that there would be a great deal of support and admiration for his suggestion about bringing people together at local level to ensure proper co-ordination. These issues, especially the transition to independence, are important. I wish my hon. Friend well with this project. Other Members may wish to follow his example.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) mentioned a constituency interest with wider implications—the fiscal regime affecting the offshore oil and gas industries. My hon. Friend said that he was not a tax expert, but at times, he sounded like one and I commend him on that. He asked the Treasury to take a wider view, but he acknowledged that it was not a simple issue. I shall ensure that his remarks are passed to my ministerial colleagues. There will be proper consultation before any detailed plans are finalised.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), to whom I always listen with great pleasure, raised the question of referendums. It is a little ironic that he is criticising referendums on the day when the leader of his party is, rightly, in Northern Ireland campaigning for a yes vote. He asked whether referendums were a legitimate or valid process. I am afraid that he will simply have to live with the fact that the House has approved legislation that he does not like, and he will have to live with the consequences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) discussed the Playpen campaign. The Government are undertaking consultation on future regulation in that area, so it would be wrong if I said anything that might pre-empt that.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned duty-free goods. I remind him that it was the Conservative Government who, in 1991, signed up to the abolition of duty-free procedures. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire also mentioned that matter—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

Cherry Tree Nursery, Wakefield

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a series of concerns relating to the operation of the Registered Homes Act 1984 and the Children Act 1989 in respect of the recent registration of Cherry Tree day nursery, which operates in premises that were, until recently, used as a residential care home known as Garden house. The establishment is situated at the junction of Upper York street and Borough road, close to Wakefield city centre.
When the House previously discussed the operation of the 1984 Act and wider issues concerning care provision, I expressed my worries about weaknesses in the legislation in respect of the suitability and fitness of the owner or owners of businesses that are subject to registration. The developments that I shall outline today in respect of the former Garden house establishment and its transformation into the Cherry Tree day nursery, under the same ownership, provide a clear illustration of the need to ensure that the forthcoming proposals for reform of registration and inspection procedures deal clearly with the suitability and fitness of owners as well as managers and staff.
I want to make it clear at the outset that I have no reason whatever to raise questions about the fitness, suitability or competence of those staff working in the Cherry Tree day nursery who had no previous involvement in the running of the former Garden house care home. I hope that when they are aware of the numerous representations that I have received about this matter, they will understand why it has been necessary to bring it to the attention of the House. I emphasise that my prime concern is to illustrate a major weakness in the law that has allowed Mrs. Pauline Webster, the owner of a care home that had caused the local registration authority serious concerns, to register another care enterprise with a different client group and legal framework.
My involvement in the matter began in 1996, when some constituents sought my advice on the placement of their elderly mother. I recall advising them to contact the local Abbeyfield trust, which operates an excellent establishment in Wakefield. I later learned that their mother had, for whatever reason, been admitted to the Garden house residential home. Prompted by its owner, Mrs. Webster, they wrote to me asking for my support in objecting to a planning application to convert a carpet shop adjacent to the home into a nightclub and discotheque. The local authority refused the application in November 1996, but I am advised that Mrs. Webster asked all relatives to keep an eye on planning applications mentioned in the local paper.
The daughter of one of the residents has given me a written statement, which sets out in her terms the subsequent events. Although I have permission to quote verbatim from that statement, and from statements made to me by relatives of other former Garden house residents, I do not intend to reveal their identities during this debate because at least one of them—along with me and the local newspaper, the Wakefield Express—has already received what I can only describe as threatening letters from solicitors acting on behalf of Mrs. Webster. However, I am only too willing to make available to the Minister all the correspondence and evidence that I have received on the matter, which substantiate in detail the serious concerns that I shall express.
The daughter writes:
One Friday evening in February (1997) on my way back from visiting my mum in Garden House, I picked up the local paper as usual. Whilst having my lunch I was horrified to see Mrs. P. Webster, Day Nursery, same address as residential home in planning.
The lady was understandably deeply concerned that, having only recently settled her mother into Garden house, assuming that it would be for the rest of her days, the establishment was apparently to be converted into a day nursery. She immediately rang Garden house and spoke to Mrs. Webster's niece, Ms Amanda Lodge, with whom she had already conversed earlier that day when nothing had been mentioned. She said:
She assured me Mum would be fine for at least two or three years, nothing at all to worry about, it's just in case Hanson's (the carpet shop) does become a nightclub or pub, then it would not sell as a residential home. It all sounded fine to me and others too.
On 4 March 1997, the daughter paid £940 advance fees in respect of her mother's care, effective from 6 March. On 18 March, Mrs. Webster rang her to say that the home was closing and her mother had to leave as soon as she could find her an alternative place.
The daughter of another resident wrote that she, too, had sought assurances from Amanda Lodge after the appearance of the planning application for a nursery. Ms Lodge had said that there was no way in which that could happen. In a letter the daughter says:
I carried on visiting my mother until on 17 March Mrs. Webster rang me at home and asked me to look for somewhere else for my mother within the next fortnight as she was closing. I was absolutely shocked and in my opinion she should have told me earlier if she knew what was happening. I think she just kept everybody there to keep her money coming in.
Another letter that I received states:
I did not like the way I was given 12 days notice for my mother to find another home. My mother did not want to go into a home in the first place and she had just settled down and then we had to go through all the upset again.
Other letters from relatives of residents make similar statements, some of which refer to disputes with Mrs. Webster over allegations of outstanding fees. In one case, the family concerned had clear evidence of having paid in advance for the care of their relative, but, as she left the home, Mrs. Webster allegedly threatened them in
a very hostile and abusive manner".
One of the relatives said that the family paid the £235 fee only
to stop Mrs. Webster besmirching my mother's or our name".
The family then immediately put the matter in the hands of solicitors.
Another family was owed £470 for overpayment of fees at the time of the closure. I have evidence to show that the cheque that Mrs. Webster issued to them on 20 March for that amount bounced when presented at a building society.
It is now apparent that alterations to turn the home into a day nursery were being undertaken while the elderly residents were living there, unaware that they would shortly be made to leave. The first relative whom I quoted states:
Sometime at the end of January, beginning of February (1997) work started on Garden House and it got worse. When I asked, it was 'Oh, a leak here and another one there.' It was still going on when my mum moved out and a large fireplace was taken out of my mother's bedroom whilst she and the lady she shared the room with were still using that room and which they had paid for.


Another relative wrote that her mother was moved from her own bedroom to another one as the alterations started before the residents even knew that they were to leave.
Unfortunately, I became aware of those developments only after Garden house was closed and several relatives of former residents complained to me about their treatment. I was especially concerned to receive detailed complaints about the quality of care received at the home, which in some cases became apparent only once the residents had moved elsewhere. For instance, one person had had serious worries about an itchy rash that her mother had had on her body for several months. It caused her to scratch, sometimes until she bled. When she moved to another home, the rash was immediately recognised as scabies, for which she and all the other residents received immediate treatment. I find it astonishing that that condition had been deemed to be a nervous rash during her stay at Garden house. After the concerns of relatives featured in the Wakefield Express in 1997, I received a letter from someone who had worked at Garden house, making detailed allegations of residents being frightened of Mrs. Webster.
After receiving representations from relatives of former residents, I took up their detailed concerns with the chief executive of Wakefield metropolitan district council, the registration authority. I was advised that a range of concerns about Garden house had culminated in the issuing of a section 20 notice in August 1994, to ensure compliance with standards. The registration authority had become aware of the possible change of use in December 1996 through informal inquiries by Mrs. Webster about day nursery registration.
After the environmental health department had been asked in February 1997 to make an advisory visit regarding day nursery proposals, the registration and inspection unit wrote to Mrs. Webster on 18 February 1997, referring to the possible change of use of Garden house. The letter advised:
In view of the need to ensure that the needs of current users are met, it would be important to ensure good communication between her and the Adult Section of the Registration Unit if she decided to proceed with an application for a change of registration.
During the following month, the unit spoke to Mrs. Webster about the need for careful planning to minimise disruption to residents, and she was asked to forward information about residents for whom the local authority had responsibility. It says that she did not provide the information until it made a follow-up telephone call.
The unit learned of the imminent closure of the home following a telephone call from the contracts section of the community and social services department on 24 March 1997. It visited Garden house that day, and established that a number of residents had been moved and that the home was due to close on 28 March. In his letter to me of 22 May 1997, the chief executive of Wakefield metropolitan district council states:
Mrs. Webster was not at the home on this visit and had not at any time advised the unit of the home's closure date.
In the same letter, he advised me that, on 25 March, a letter was sent to Mrs. Webster summarising previous correspondence and communication between the unit and her over the closure, advising her that she had again not complied with the requirements of regulation 14 of the Residential Care Homes Regulations 1984 and requesting the immediate return of the certificate of registration.
Mrs. Webster did not reply, so a further letter was sent to her on 15 April 1997. The certificate was returned to the unit through her solicitor on 17 April. The chief executive's letter advised me at the time that a letter was being sent to local authorities in England and Wales recommending that they contact Wakefield metropolitan district council should Mrs. Webster apply to register a residential care home.
On 1 July 1997, a sub-committee of the council's community and social services committee cancelled Mrs. Webster's registration as the person in control of Garden house, and that of Mrs. C. Russell, its registered manager. On 16 December 1997, the sub-committee considered an application by Mrs. Webster and Ms Lodge to be registered to provide full day care at Cherry Tree day nursery, which had the same address as Garden house.
The committee was given legal advice in relation to sections 79(9), 71(10) and 71(11) of the 1989 Act which explain that powers to refuse registration have to be related to the fitness of an applicant to look after children aged under eight. The sub-committee was advised of the concern of officers about the abrupt closure of Garden house and the complaints received about that. It was also advised of the serving of the notice on Mrs. Webster about the breach of regulations under the 1984 Act.
It was recognised, however, that, despite those concerns, the authority was constrained by the legal advice relating to the fitness of the applicant to look after children, as defined in the 1989 Act. In the circumstances, the sub-committee took the view that registration would not be granted until it was provided with specific information about the qualifications and experience of those who would have day-to-day responsibility for the service. That information was considered by the sub-committee on 10 March 1998, and, because of the satisfactory arrangements that had been made for the day-to-day management of the day nursery and on the basis of the available advice, registration was granted.
I have no criticisms of the actions of the local authority in respect of the case. I believe that anomalies in the 1989 Act prevented it from refusing a registration when it had clear grounds for serious concern arising from the running and subsequent closure of Garden house. In a letter to me on 15 May 1998, the director of social services wrote that. under the Act,
the employment of suitable qualified and experienced staff who will manage the service on a day to day basis in the form of Officer in Charge and Deputy Officer in Charge, is the issue which registering authorities have to decide on with regard to the fitness of an applicant. In this context, the employment of suitable staff with responsibility for managing the service on a day to day basis, effectively places a barrier between Mrs. Webster's role with regard to the closure of Garden House and the extent to which this can be taken into account in the operation of Cherry Tree Day Nursery.
In effect, the 1989 Act became a barrier to proper consideration of information on the actions of two people previously registered under the 1984 Act and involved in the day care of children.
The registration of the Cherry Tree day nursery was reported in the Wakefield Express on 20 March 1998. To its credit, concern over subsequent developments was fully reported, despite threats of a libel action by Mrs. Webster's solicitors over coverage of the closure of Garden house. As a consequence of that further press coverage, I received a fax that same day from Mr. David Crisp of Gough and


Norris Construction, a building company based in Wakefield. I have Mr. Crisp's permission to refer to its contents.
Mr. Crisp advised me that
Gough and Norris carried out a significant amount of work for Mrs. Webster on improving the car park and the garden/play area at the nursery. To date Mrs. Webster has not paid a penny for the work and clearly has no intention of doing so. Gough and Norris have taken Mrs. Webster to court and I attach the awards made in our favour. Sadly, the courts cannot, it seems, make Mrs. Webster pay and we have to find a way of securing our debt.
He continues:
We are not the only company that Mrs. Webster employed and we are aware of others who are either owed money or who have had to turn to the courts to secure payment. We are a small company and somewhat naively assumed that Mrs. Webster would honour her agreement when the works had been completed—Mrs. Webster is clearly not an honourable person and has in our opinion openly manipulated the system to avoid paying her debts.
The company enclosed copies of a judgment of Wakefield county court dated 20 January 1998 ordering Mrs. Webster to pay it £3,564.24, and a copy of an application from Mrs. Webster dated 28 January 1998 for the judgment to be set aside because the court's information was sent to Zermansky's solicitors, which she states no longer represents her. That is especially interesting, because the solicitors Zermansky and Partners of Leeds wrote the letter threatening legal action on behalf of Mrs. Webster to the Wakefield Express on 29 September 1997.
On 16 April 1998, the firm also wrote to a woman whom Mrs. Webster believed had written to the Wakefield Express complaining about the way in which Garden house closed. On the same day, it also wrote to me, on behalf of Mrs. Webster, suggesting that I was not aware of what it termed the full facts of the case, of which it was preparing a detailed summary. It promised that summary, for which I asked urgently, more than a month ago; it was faxed to me earlier this week, presumably because this debate was to take place. I have made it available to my hon. Friend the Minister. In my view, it does not in any way address the serious concerns expressed by my constituents.
For a considerable time, I have been under enormous pressure from many of my constituents to bring the matter to Parliament's attention. Since the day nursery's registration, I have had to balance the serious concerns of those affected by the Garden house closure, and of companies such as Gough and Norris, with the interests of staff who work at the nursery, but have no connection with Garden house. I hope that the staff concerned understand that I would have been failing in my duty if I had not acted on the representations received.
I hope that the Minister will assure me that this apparent anomaly in legislation will be addressed and that steps will be taken to deal with other issues that arise from this case. I appreciate that several of these issues relate to the responsibilities of the Department of Health, but, for the record, I should like to make the point that Age Concern in Wakefield was extremely perturbed that, when Garden house was closed, there was a lack of sanctions available to the local authority. It suggests that a local authority should have the ability to take control of a private home in such a situation until suitable new homes have been found for residents—rather like an official receiver takes control of a business.
I add one other point, which is also relevant to the Department of Health's role. At the time of the closure, the local authority was obviously primarily concerned with those residents whose care costs it had met. The other residents were fortunate to have relatives who were able to seek alternative placements, but, if they had been elderly people with no families, I wonder how they would have fared.
I appreciate that much of the debate relates to Department of Health concerns as well as to those of the Minister's Department, but I look forward to her comments on the concerns that I have expressed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) for bringing this matter to the House. It is clearly an issue of great concern in his constituency, not only to people who have been residents and their families, but to others who may, as he says, find themselves in a similar situation. As he says, the case that he has quoted spans legislation that is covered by both the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment. I welcome the opportunity to respond to his concerns and to set out the Government's views on the subject.
There are clearly two issues: the registration of the residential home and the registration of nurseries and child care establishments, which is perhaps of greater importance, given the work that the Government are doing.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the history of the Cherry Tree day nursery. He has set out important details relating to the nursery's former existence as a residential care home for the elderly, which was closed at short notice by the owner, causing considerable distress to the residents of the home at the time. As he is aware, such homes are registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984, which is the responsibility of the Department of Health.
I assure my hon. Friend that registration authorities can decide to cancel a home's registration if the home is considered to be seriously in breach of registration conditions. Emergency powers are also available. He will also be aware that there are occasions when, for a variety of personal reasons, a home owner may choose to cease trading and that it is very difficult for the Government or local authorities to intervene in such a decision.
I understand from contacts that my officials have had with Wakefield metropolitan council that the closure of Garden house was at the owner's instigation, and that, at that time, the local authority had no evidence of any impropriety or serious risk to the home's residents to cause it to consider closure itself. However, my hon. Friend paints a disturbing picture of the events surrounding the closure of Garden house and hints at misconduct by the owner. He will agree that local authorities should take action only when clear evidence is put before them and that, in the interests of fairness, it would not be reasonable to do otherwise. However, the general fitness of a person and their ability to care for children should be taken into account when deciding not only on original registration, but on matters that might be brought before local authorities subsequently.
I turn to the process of registration for the Cherry Tree day nursery, as carried out by Wakefield metropolitan council. I understand that, in December 1997, an application was made to the council for registration under the Children Act to provide full day care at Cherry Tree day nursery, at the site of the previous residential home. Primary responsibility for making judgments on those issues rests with the local authority.
In deciding whether to register the nursery, the authority considered carefully the fitness of the people who were applying for registration. I shall return to that matter because I accept that it is at the core of what my hon. Friend has been speaking about. The authority's consideration covers the fitness of the person who seeks registration to care for children, the fitness of anyone likely to be working or living at the premises where care is provided, and the fitness of the premises.
The authority concluded at that time that it had no evidence or other grounds to refuse registration. If such evidence were forthcoming, the authority would have ample scope within the legislation to refuse registration for the nursery. Indeed, if there is concrete evidence or serious concern that any person is not fit to care for young children, the authority has ample powers under the Children Act to cancel registration. It is important to note that it is not only initial registration that ensures use; the authority has powers to cancel that registration as well. If the evidence suggests that any child who uses the service is at risk of serious harm, emergency powers are available for the immediate cancellation of registration. I understand that no such evidence has been brought to the local authority's attention, so it has not felt able to act.
Let me outline what we have done and are doing to help to reassure families and to improve services for children. We know that early years services have evolved considerably over the past few years. As well as an increasing number and variety of providers, there is a strong move towards the integration of early education and day care. Indeed, for all children, particularly the youngest, the two concepts cannot sensibly be separated. Regulating the provision of early education and day care is essential to ensure the safety and welfare of children; to provide additional assurance to parents; and to ensure that public funds are well spent.
It is crucial that any parent who puts their child in any caring establishment that claims to provide care, education or both has the reassurance that their child will

be well protected. The system of regulation and inspection for both child care and early years education that we inherited from the previous Government leaves a lot to be desired. As both those sectors have grown in importance, there has been no cohesive action to make sense of the different regulatory and inspection frameworks that operate.
That is why, on 27 March, we issued an important consultation paper on the way forward for inspecting and regulating establishments such as the Cherry Tree day nursery. I reassure my hon. Friend about the five principles on which the consultation paper is based. They are those identified by the better regulation task force: consistency, transparency, proportionality, targeting and accountability.
The paper is out for consultation. Because we do not want to prejudge the issue, it asks a series of questions about what we have identified as the key issues. I reassure my hon. Friend that one of the questions that is specifically raised is what we should do when we consider fit people and premises requirements in relation to the regulations. We look forward to receiving many constructive and thoughtful responses, which will help us to devise a more appropriate regulatory regime. I will take his comments as a response to that consultation, but, given his wide experience in this matter and his clear constituency interest, I hope that he will feel able to respond further and in greater detail to the specific questions that we have asked.
My hon. Friend has raised a crucial issue: the care of those who are often the most vulnerable in our community. They have a right to be protected, and that will happen only if we have a regulatory and inspection framework that enables that inspection to be robust. His debate is timely not only because the Department of Health is reviewing its inspection arrangements for residential homes, but because we are reviewing our regulatory framework for people who look after young children.
I shall consider the questions that my hon. Friend has raised, in particular whether owners are included in the category of fit people. I shall ensure that, in further consultation, we emphasise the need, as my hon. Friend rightly did, to ensure the appropriateness of the owner of an establishment, as well as those who run it. I thank him for bringing the matters to the attention of the House, and I look forward to hearing his further comments as part of our consultation.

School Choice

Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate. Its subject is very familiar to the Minister. I do not want to repeat the mantras about the Greenwich judgment; I want to try to update the problem in the light of new developments, particularly the effect of the School Standards and Framework Bill and the requirements for smaller primary classes, which materially affect the issue. I want also to make practical proposals as to how we can make headway on the matter, which I know the Minister has discussed.
I come here in the hopeful expectation that the Minister of State is in a listening mode. I am encouraged by the fact that I wrote to him a few weeks ago on the more specialised subject of the lighting deficiencies of one of my local secondary schools and I was pleasantly surprised to receive a letter from him informing me that the money would be available in the capital budget for the following year. I realise that this is a much wider issue, but none the less, that suggested that I should have some hope and faith in ministerial attention.
The starting point for my remarks is parochial because I want to make initial references to my borough, Richmond. I do not do so in a narrowly parochial way because my points relate to a substantial number of boroughs. Around nine boroughs in London, which is roughly 20 constituencies, and about six in other parts of the country—probably more now that we are changing from county councils to unitary authorities—face the same problem in different ways. Richmond's experience is instructive and, I hope, from the Government's standpoint, positive in several ways.
First, Richmond, perhaps more than any other council, has taken seriously the Government's edict of regarding education, education, education as the main priority in expenditure, so much so that the borough has made painful decisions to give overriding priority to schools. It has taken standards extremely seriously to the extent that in the primary sector, and to a lesser degree in the secondary sector, it is probably pre-eminent in the country. Perhaps most important, the borough ignored all the blandishments of the Conservative era and not a single school opted out of local authority control and became grant-maintained. Parents, teachers and the council maintained faith in the local authority principle, so the authority has many positive features that the Government would find attractive.
The Greenwich judgment problem has affected Richmond in several key respects. We have roughly 10 per cent. of the primary intake from other boroughs and almost 45 per cent. of the secondary intake. That is partly a function of geography. Richmond is a small, elongated borough, and there are probably several natural neighbourhood movements across the border, but the school intake is far in excess of what would be achieved simply as a result of neighbourhood concentration.
What causes strong feeling in the area is the process of migration from low council tax, low service standard boroughs such as Wandsworth into my borough, where council taxes are relatively high, partly as a result of very high expenditure on education. If that were happening in international trade, it would be called an unfair trading

practice, but it is a practice that we must accommodate as a result of the way in which the legislation gives the authority no discretion to favour local residents.
That practice is causing specific problems, of which I know the Minister of State is well aware. First, there is a great deal of parental frustration. During the past couple of years, more than 100 parents in the primary sector, which is the least affected, were unable to get their first choice, and most of them appealed. There were many more such cases in the secondary sector.
There is a problem of physical overcrowding. The projections undertaken as part of the council's forward planning exercise show that about seven and a half additional classes at first-form entry will be required to meet additional demand, much of which comes from outside the borough. That figure will increase as a result of the class size reduction planned by the Government.
Apart from those purely statistical problems, there is a deeper political problem that I have sensed during the year in which I have been a Member of Parliament. I have tried to justify to electors on the doorstep an overriding priority for education as an expenditure and a social objective. I often get from residents, particularly older ones with grown-up children, the riposte, "Why are we in this borough spending so much on education? What benefit do we receive from that? We pay high council tax for our schools, but so much of the capacity is used up by people from outside the borough. Why do we bother?" Our commitment to education is being eroded because under the current law, the council is not allowed to give its own residents and council tax payers preference in the allocation of school places.
That is the problem, but there are two new considerations, which I hope will advance the debate a little. The first is the passage of the School Standards and Framework Bill. One of its key features—of which the Minister, as the Bill's architect, is well aware—is that it gives local education authorities responsibilities for school standards and enhances their role. However, it gives them the end without giving them the means to achieve it. A local education authority's additional responsibility should be reflected in greater authority and discretion in admissions policy.
The other development, which quantification suggests will have a significant impact, is the decrease in class sizes as a result of the maximum of 30 in a class that the Government want to introduce. In broad terms, that aim is absolutely right and we have fought and argued for it. It represents considerable progress. Research shows that class sizes, particularly in the primary sector, should be as small as possible, probably much smaller than 30. Therefore, the Government's aim is an admirable advance, and we fully support it. However, it presents practical problems because it will require a considerable increase in the number of classes that have to be accommodated. The early calculations in Richmond suggest that the shortage of classes in 2000 will increase from the present seven and a half to 10. Those classes must be accommodated.
The spirit in which the Government propose to approach that problem is reflected in the draft regulations, which have been put out to consultation. A key phrase in the draft regulations says that
where extra places are needed, they should be created in popular, over-subscribed schools with high standards".


Those are exactly the schools that Richmond has and where the additional pressure will be felt. In our borough, we are extremely conscious that the Government's requirements, which I stress we strongly favour in principle, and the methods to fulfil them suggested in the draft consultation document will greatly accentuate the practical problems of dealing with cross-border migration.
I have a few suggestions as to how we might find a solution. I am well aware that the Minister of State has taken part in several debates with my colleagues on this matter. He has been approached by national associations, the subject has been raised at teachers union conferences and there has been extensive correspondence. I have recently been shown a helpful letter on the subject from the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge).
I stress that when we speak of abolishing the Greenwich judgment or changing the law, we are making a modest suggestion. No one who is concerned with the problem seriously expects the Government to introduce primary legislation. Indeed, in the letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, the Minister of State specifically rules out legislative change, and we understand that.
There are probably two ways in which secondary legislation and regulations could be used to deal with many of our problems. First, written into the admission regulations issued after the passage of the new legislation could be the right of local education authorities to consider an authority's boundaries as a legitimate criterion in admissions policy. I imagine that the Government might well respond to that proposal by saying that allowing such a criterion could be open to abuse, and by saying, "We might have a leafy shire borough trying to exclude all the yobs from across the boundary. We must not allow that to happen."
I envisage that such abuse could be avoided by building into the legislation a proviso that the local education authority's policy must in the final analysis provide for an appeal to the Secretary of State, who would have overriding powers to ensure that the more flexible admissions approach was not abused. However, with that proviso, the local education authority should be recognised as having a status in consideration of preference—so that, when pupils are competing for a place, a pupil's origination in the tax-paying authority should be regarded as a legitimate basis of preference.
We are therefore talking about overturning the Greenwich judgment not in any very grand way, but simply by allowing authorities where the judgment is a problem to take local residents into consideration in their admissions policy. That would be one way of dealing with the problem.
Another way of dealing with the problem, within broadly the same framework, would be the independent appeals system, admirably introduced by the new legislation, with a higher authority to that appeals system. If the appeals system had incorporated within it the provision that appropriate weight should be given to someone's residence in the tax-paying authority in considering an appeal against rejection of an application for a school place, it would go some of the way in meeting our concerns.
Therefore, many of the concerns of my borough and of boroughs like it could be met appropriately through admissions regulations, appeal regulations or a combination of the two.
I suspect that the other way of dealing with the problem—through financial flows—is probably less palatable to the Government, although it certainly follows from the logic of a free-for-all, if that is what the Government wish to allow to continue. In the past few years, under the standard spending assessment system, money has effectively followed pupils, as the Minister knows. However, the system does not take into account capital costs.
One of the mounting problems that I have already described—overcrowding of schools, aggravated by the Greenwich judgment, and combined with the smaller class requirement—will create major demands for capital funding for our local authority. If the Government cannot find any way of changing the regulations, they will have to make available substantial additional capital funding to enable all those children to be adequately provided for within the framework of local authorities' obligations. I appeal to them to do so, although I suspect that that option would be more expensive and perhaps less efficient for the Government. Nevertheless, it is the other way of dealing with the matter.
I ask the Minister to try to help us to move the debate forward, because we have a genuine problem. Although we realise that the problem does not affect the whole country, it affects authorities that attach a high value to education and—in the case of Richmond—a very high value to staying within the maintained sector. Although my constituents wish to comply with the Government's expectations of higher standards, they strongly believe that—ultimately, as a matter of principle—if one pays one's council tax to the local council to improve education services, one should have preferential access to its schools. It is a simple principle, and I hope that we shall be able to find a way of recognising it.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and the Minister of State for allowing me to put in my five penn'orth. As my hon. Friend knows, we share the borough of Richmond upon Thames, and my constituency also spans the borough of Kingston upon Thames, which has a similar problem with the Greenwich judgment.
The problem in Richmond upon Thames is—judging by my postbag—mainly in the secondary sector, as all but one of our secondary schools are on the borough's borders. Consequently, 45 per cent. of children in secondary schools in Richmond upon Thames are not Richmond children but from other boroughs, which, as my hon. Friend explained, has caused much ill-feeling among the borough's residents.
If the borough had the money or could find a site to do so, we could move all those schools and plonk them in the centre of the borough. Although doing so would solve the problem, it is not possible.
We could expand our schools, although doing so would be against the wishes of parents and governors, who think that the schools are already large enough. Moreover, if we expanded the schools, more children from out of the borough would come in, as they would still be on the borders, and we would still run the schools nearest to many children in other boroughs.
I have sympathy for parents who are near the borders of a borough with excellent schools. It must be very difficult to live a mile away from a suburban school run


by the borough of Richmond upon Thames, and to be struggling to ensure that one's child receives a good education, when one's own borough is not providing the same education. Nevertheless, we shall have to deal with the problem in the ways suggested by my hon. Friend.
The Greenwich judgment has created an acute problem for some London boroughs, particularly Richmond, and I urge the Minister to consider possible solutions. Within the borough, we have tried everything that we can possibly do. I myself have been a councillor in the borough and have struggled with the problem. Although we have tried, we simply do not know what to do, to be fair to our own children.
I wonder whether the Minister—who very kindly and courteously replied to correspondence from me—or his civil servants could come to the borough to hold discussions with our officers and staff, to try to reach some sort of solution to a terrible problem.

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this debate on the consequences of the Greenwich judgment, and particularly on the reasonable way in which he addressed the issues. We are always pleased to have solutions proposed to problems as they arise, and I hope that we are a Government who are prepared to consider sensible propositions, from whichever political party they may originate. We want to put children's interests first.
I am pleased also that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) has been able to speak in the debate. We have corresponded on the issue, and—both since she was elected to the House, and for a few years before that, as a locally elected council member—she has shown concern for her constituents, and about the way in which they are affected by the Greenwich judgment.
It might be worth outlining the exact consequences of the Greenwich judgment, as there has been a good deal of confusion about the judgment's meaning in practice. Sometimes, there is a tendency to blame all the difficulties of an admissions procedure on the Greenwich judgment and its consequences.
The judgment was largely a result of the abolition of the Inner London education authority. Many London boroughs were within the ILEA, but they did not have responsibility for education. On the ILEA's abolition, the individual boroughs themselves became local education authorities, which caused some difficulty.
The abolition certainly caused problems in Greenwich and Lewisham. As the two boroughs were within the ILEA, over the years, many children residing in Lewisham went to schools in Greenwich, and many children in Greenwich went to schools in Lewisham. There was much free trade, as there was no local education authority.
On abolition of the ILEA, with education responsibilities being passed down to individual inner London boroughs, the two boroughs themselves became local education authorities. Greenwich decided that it wanted to give overriding priority to children whose parents resided within the Greenwich area, and to establish a boundary based on local authority areas.
In 1989, the Court of Appeal had to decide whether Greenwich's decision should be binding. The decision was that priority should not be given to an applicant solely because he or she resided in a local education authority area. However, the judgment does not mean that schools have to expand to admit out-of-LEA-area applicants. They can simply admit up to their published admissions limit and then refuse applications. Therefore, an admissions authority has the power to cap the number of pupils who may come to a school.
When a school is over-subscribed, the duty to comply with a parent's choice is disapplied and is no longer a priority. Instead, admissions authorities have to use any reasonable criteria to allocate places among applicants. If an admissions authority so wishes, it can give priority to those living closest to a school. That is clearly the case.
There is some confusion on the matter. The Greenwich judgment does not deny local parents a choice of school. It lays down that an admissions authority cannot give priority simply because an applicant resides within an LEA area. It is a question not of locality or proximity, but of an administrative area—the local education authority—which cannot be regarded as giving priority to a particular applicant.

Mr. Phil Willis: Do not the Minister's comments fly in the face of the Rotherham judgment—the other judgment that must be considered—which gave a different primacy in admissions policy?

Mr. Byers: I am not sure that the Rotherham judgment does that. It concerns the expression of an order of preference by individual parents and is not related to where the parent may reside, so the two issues are quite different. The Rotherham judgment will cause a number of problems in certain local education authorities because of the way in which they have traditionally operated their admissions arrangements, but it is sensible to consider that judgment as a separate set of problems, to which we look forward to solutions being offered, as opposed to the problems created by the Greenwich judgment, which are different. The Greenwich judgment still allows proximity to be an issue—a reasonable criterion to be applied—but does not restrict it to residents within a particular LEA area.
We have been considering the implications of the Greenwich judgment in the light of the School Standards and Framework Bill and, in particular, the code of practice on admissions that we shall have to publish as a result of the provisions in the Bill. I am sure that we shall reflect upon some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Twickenham when we draw up the code of practice, which we expect to be able to publish some time early next year. There will be a full debate in the House on the details of the code, because it is subject to agreement by both this House and the House of Lords.
In the interim, guidance will be issued on admissions for September 1999. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to issue that guidance within the next four to six weeks. Once again, it will be for consultation and will provide another opportunity for hon. Members who are concerned about the impact of the Greenwich judgment to make representations.
The Government's priority on school admissions, which will be reflected in the interim guidance, is to enable local education authorities and schools to meet the


preferences of as many parents as is realistically possible, regardless of where the parents happen to live. We have listened carefully to representations on what we can put in the Bill, but we are not convinced of the need to reverse the Greenwich judgment. Indeed, the White Paper, "Excellence in Schools", which we issued last July, referred explicitly to admissions and did not reveal a national ground swell of opinion for changing the impact of that judgment. In many areas, it has opened up opportunities for many parents.
Local education authority planning should support parental preference. Patterns of cross-border movement have become well established, some even predating the Greenwich judgment itself. LEAs should be able to plan school places around those admissions patterns. That does not mean that there should not be proper cross-border co-operation. Our proposed new framework for school admissions will require consultation and the agreement of admissions authorities throughout LEA areas.
I recognise that some parents feel strongly about the effect of the judgment. We heard this morning from the hon. Members for Twickenham and for Richmond Park, who represent Richmond, about the problems and the way in which parents feel the Greenwich judgment is affecting their choice. However, many parents have welcomed the removal of what they saw as an artificial restriction on their choice. On balance, it is preferable to have an open system in which all school applications are considered on an equal basis, rather than one that depends critically on residence within a particular local authority area. To put it bluntly, local authority boundaries should not be given preference over the interests of parents and their children. Under our proposals, those interests will be put first.
By removing a purely administrative criterion, the Greenwich judgment has opened up opportunities for parents and children. For example, it removes a barrier to children going to more distant schools that perhaps have a specialism and could best meet the educational needs of that youngster. Most significantly, in some cases it means that children can go to more local schools, which just happen to be over the road in another LEA area. We must recognise that many schools are situated close to LEA borders. In such situations, it cannot be right for children to be refused a place at their local school simply because they live on the wrong side of a line drawn for purely administrative purposes.
Cross-border movement works both ways. Local education authorities import and export. Bringing down an iron curtain, as a return to the situation before

Greenwich would do, would disfranchise hundreds of parents in many local authority areas. However, the status quo is not good enough. There has to be change because of the flaws in the present system, which have been identified and about which we heard most recently from the hon. Members for Twickenham and for Richmond Park.
The School Standards and Framework Bill provides the opportunity to overcome many of the difficulties at present being experienced. We shall give an additional responsibility to individual LEAs to plan the places in their locality, devolving power to local levels so that they can more readily respond to the needs of local people, and parents in particular. The proposals in the Bill will overcome many of the difficulties that exist at present.
The hon. Member for Twickenham referred to funding. Many of us have real concerns—we can hear parents or perhaps grandparents on the doorstep, asking, "Why am I paying more in my council tax bills when we are providing education for children across the border in authorities with lower bills?" That is an important point and one that we should not ignore. It would not be right to go back to the days of mandatory recoupment, when there was a paperchase and local authorities invested literally thousands of pounds to chase up and identify where a child had gone for his or her education. That would not be an efficient use of public money.
It is best to deal with the problem through the standard spending assessment system. We are in the middle of a wide-ranging review of education SSAs. Most of us recognise that the present system is flawed and needs to change generally. If LEAs feel that particular difficulties are being caused by the Greenwich judgment and have specific proposals for changing the education SSA formula in some way, I should be happy to consider such suggestions alongside the other options for change that we are considering.
The Government are acutely aware of the concerns of hon. Members, parents and LEAs about the Greenwich judgment. It is important that the judgment is not used as a ready-made excuse for all the difficulties that may be thrown up during an admissions round. The challenge that the Government face is to provide for parental preference with a fair, open and transparent admissions framework. In our view, the School Standards and Framework Bill will do that. Perhaps most important, it will allow us to raise standards in schools across the country, so that all parents will have access to a school that meets their needs for a high-quality education, thereby offering their children the best possible start in life.

Health and Safety Representatives

Mr. Ian Stewart: First, I must declare an interest as a lifelong trade unionist—in my previous job as the north-west regional official of the Transport and General Workers Union, health and safety ranked as my greatest interest alongside job security.
Twenty-four years ago, the Labour Government enacted the most important piece of health and safety law—the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. For the first time, all those who worked for a living, with the notable exception of domestic servants—to this day, I cannot understand why they were excluded—were covered by health and safety law. It is timely, under the new Labour Government, briefly to review the success and limitations of that Act.
At first glance, the Act seems to have been a success. In 1974, there were 479 workplace deaths, 161 of which were in construction. By 1996–97, the figure had fallen to 302, 98 of which were in construction. However, that figure represented a rise in workplace deaths from the previous year, when there were 258 deaths, of which 82 were in construction. In agriculture, the death rate has increased by 40 per cent. —from 45 in 1995–96 to 63, eight of which were children. That means that there is more than one death a week.
The director general of the Health and Safety Executive called the recent rise a tragic blip. That sounds like the less-than-sensitive defence of an administrator with too few resources for the job. We do not know how the families and friends of those who died feel, but we know from many HSE studies over the past 20 years that most of the deaths were preventable, which means that they were not true accidents—they were not unforeseen events. The HSE studies also show that, in about 70 per cent. of those cases, positive management action could have prevented the deaths. The relatives and friends of those killed could quite properly have asked the HSE why the deaths were not prevented.
In addition to those largely preventable deaths, 50,000 major injuries were reported to the HSE in 1996–97. When the HSE annual report for 1996–97 was launched in November 1997, the Institute of Employment Rights released figures showing that, of the 50,000 major injuries, only 2,158–4 per cent. —were investigated. However, in 1995–96, 12 per cent. of cases were investigated, and, in 1994–95, 15 per cent. of cases were investigated.
As a more specific illustration, in 1996–97, only six of the 100 blindings—6 per cent. —were investigated. Again, in 1995–96, 26 per cent. of such cases were investigated, and, in 1994–95, 35 per cent. of them were investigated. In 1996–97, only 297 of the 1,158 amputations—25 per cent. —were investigated, whereas, in 1995–96, 42 per cent. of amputations were investigated and, in 1994–95, the figure was 48 per cent.
Although the number of investigations in 1994–95 was nothing to cheer about, the decline in investigations in recent years is alarming. The figures for deaths and serious accidents are bad enough, but the figures on workplace ill health are also worrying. A few weeks ago, the HSE released the results of the 1995 household survey on work-related illness. More than 2 million people—one

in 10 of the working population—felt that their health had been damaged or made worse by their work. The major problems of self-reported workplace ill health were backache and repetitive strain injury, stress, chest disease, deafness and tinnitus, skin disease, headache or eye strain, and vibration white finger.
The HSE has admitted that about 20,000 people die from work-related illness each year. Asbestos disease alone—mainly cancer—still kills at least 3,500 people each year, which is more than are killed on the roads. However, the number of road deaths is falling, whereas, according to HSE-funded research carried out by Professor Julian Peto, asbestos deaths will increase for the next 30 years in the United Kingdom—from 5,000 per year now to 10,000 per year in 2025.
Asbestos was first described as an evil dust 100 years ago in the 1898 report to Parliament of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories. Members of Parliament know something about asbestos, as, in 1978, most of the asbestos in Parliament was removed in a major operation. The new Labour Government promised an asbestos ban in a debate in the House in June 1997, soon after they were elected—we have yet to deliver on that promise. Ten other European countries—including France as recently as 1996–have banned asbestos. Are we to be the last after Greece?
A major reason for the failure to prevent workplace deaths, illnesses and ill health has been the low prosecution rate, and the pathetic fines for breaking the criminal law on health and safety. In 1996–97, the HSE secured 1,052 convictions, whereas, in 1995–96, it secured 1,451—a fall of almost a third. The average fine for those serious offences—the HSE prosecutes only in serious offences—was £5,421. If the seven largest fines of between £100,000 and £500,000 are subtracted, the average falls to only £3,266.
Alan Dalton, the health and safety co-ordinator of the Transport and General Workers Union, which represents some 25,000 farm workers, had to pay the HSE £75 to find out that the HSE brought prosecutions in only two of the 63 farm deaths last year, and that the average fine in those two cases was only £2,500. Surely farmers will not take seriously their responsibility for work-related deaths if the sanctions are so pathetic. I do not think that £3,000 will deter any employer, however small, from breaking the health and safety law.
I know that, in the June 1997 debate that 1 mentioned, the Minister responsible for health and safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), expressed concern about the low fines for health and safety offences. Moreover, the Lord Chancellor has urged magistrates to deal with breaches of health and safety law more seriously. He recently told the Magistrates Association that people injured as a result of health and safety offences were victims no less than if they had been assaulted. He called on magistrates to fine more heavily.
What can be done to make the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 more effective in preventing workplace deaths, ill health and disease? The HSE was subject to deregulation, constant attack and seven demoralising reorganisations by the previous Government, and it needs more support and funding, as soon as economically possible. That will allow more inspections and prosecutions to take place.
It cannot be right or safe that each of the 750 companies licensed to remove asbestos received on average less than one site visit from an HSE inspector in the whole of 1995; but an increase in health and safety inspectors, more and larger fines and more imprisonments, although welcome, will not be enough on their own. A health and safety inspector from the HSE cannot be in a workplace week in and week out.
The answer lies with more employee participation and awareness about health and safety, and, crucially, the role of trade union safety representatives. Even with whistleblower protection rights, many part-time employees on short-term contracts in small workplaces, who are getting older or who are simply too frightened of losing their jobs, will not complain to their employer or to the HSE about hazardous workplaces.
For that and other reasons, the previous Labour Government introduced the ground-breaking Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977, providing for the appointment of trade union safety reps where trade unions are recognised by the employer for negotiating on other matters such as wages, sick pay, holidays, pensions and discipline.
Trade union safety reps have the legal right to workplace inspection at least four times a year; to inspection after accidents or ill health; to set up joint management and union safety committees; to see health and safety information; to independent training; and to paid time off to exercise those rights. Those are rights, not duties. Health and safety reps monitor employers' actions; they do not substitute for them.
There are now about 200,000 trade union safety reps throughout public and private industry and services in the United Kingdom: an excellent achievement in itself. The HSE under the previous Government cited 1995 research by Reilly, Paci and Ho11 that showed that trade union safety reps could reduce injury rates in industry by a third.
After 20 years, the safety reps regulations are clearly due for review. The trade unions report problems with getting time off to carry out their duties—especially in the public sector, where little staff cover is available—and with gaining information and getting employers to act on risk assessment.
The Transport and General Workers Union has called for safety reps' rights to be extended from only health and safety to environmental issues, which are a growing area of concern for both unions and management. There is an even bigger, and growing, problem with trade union safety reps: they can exist only where the employer recognises the union, but, by 1993, 10.7 million of the 21.3 million employees in this country worked in units where trade unions were not recognised for collective bargaining, so 50 per cent. of the work force do not have the right to representation by trade union safety reps.
It can be no accident, if hon. Members will excuse the pun, that workplaces with the highest rates of death, injury and illness—agriculture, construction and small and medium enterprises—are those in which trade union recognition is lowest, or even, as in agriculture, non-existent.
Even with the proposed new guidance on union recognition, it is clear that the growth area of the economy—the smaller workplaces, where most people work—will be excluded from the requirements. One answer is the concept of the roving safety rep. Since 1974,

roving safety reps have been working successfully in Sweden, where about 1,500 of them represent 700,000 employees in 170,000 workplaces. The reps are not employees of the workplaces they inspect and provide advice for, but the trade union employing them must have at least one member in the company or workplace that they intend to visit.
In 1995, Swedish roving safety reps undertook 65,000 workplace visits—on average, each rep was responsible for 250 workplaces—and Swedish employers paid £5.5 million, or two thirds of the cost of the scheme, with the unions paying the other third. The cost to a workplace of each rep was about £50, with a site visit costing about £140.
In 1996–97, the agricultural section of the TGWU, with the help of a European Union grant, piloted a UK roving safety reps scheme in agriculture, based on the Swedish model, and 10 T and G agricultural safety reps were trained. In 1997, the HSE funded an independent evaluation of the scheme by Dr. David Walters of South Bank university, who found that the scheme had some success but lacked two vital factors: the right of access to farms, and adequate funding for training, time off and support to the roving reps.
There was total employer hostility to the project, from the National Farmers Union, despite the 40 per cent. rise in farm deaths. In February 1996, in a debate on agriculture, health and safety in another place, the Conservative agriculture spokesman, Lord Lucas, said:
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned the TGWU roving safety representative scheme. That has had active HSE support from the start and will continue to have it. It is an excellent example of what unions can do and something of which the unions should be thoroughly proud." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 6 February 1996; Vol. 569, c. 194.]
In January 1998, T and G representatives met the Minister responsible, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, to ask for the roving safety representatives scheme to be formally recognised. They pointed out that the principle of roving safety reps already exists in regulation 8 of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977, concerning cases in which representatives need not be employees. That allows for the appointment of non-employee safety reps by the actors' union, British Equity, and by the Musicians Union.
The most recent major law on safety was introduced by the Labour Government in 1974. Although the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act is still fundamentally sound, it awaits effective enforcement by means of fines and imprisonment to match the crime of workplace death, serious injury and ill health. More workplace inspectors and inspections are required, but the real advances will be made by the involvement of all working people collectively in improving their own workplace environment, which is an aim of our Government.
Some improvements are still required in the rights of traditional union safety representatives, who exist only where trade unions are recognised by the employer. They need time off and rights on environmental questions. The concept of roving safety representatives is vital for the half of the work force for which there is no trade union recognition. That is the growth area of the economy, and more accidents, injuries and ill health occur in it, especially in agriculture, construction and small and medium enterprises.
The rapid implementation in the UK and the rest of Europe of a scheme such as the T and G's pilot based on the Swedish model would do as much to raise awareness and reduce death, injury and ill health in the workplace as the 1974 Act has done. It would be a lasting memorial to the many thousands of people needlessly killed at work in the UK during the past 20 years. It would be wonderful if the new Labour Government could save lives and give safer working environments to the working people of the United Kingdom.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): z: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on raising a debate whose importance was underlined by his chilling litany of statistics. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will tomorrow launch important new guidance supporting the offshore version of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations, so my hon. Friend's debate is fortuitously timed.
Employees and the public have a fundamental right to acceptable standards of health and safety protection. A healthy, well-protected work force is not only right, but good for business and society. The Government are determined to give health and safety at work a much higher profile than it had during 18 long years under our predecessors. We have demonstrated our commitment by providing new resources for the Health and Safety Commission and its executive. An extra £4.5 million has been allocated in this financial year to be spent on increasing the number of HSE inspectors, and therefore their enforcement activity. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome that.
My hon. Friend touched on asbestos, and I want to make it clear that our resolve to ban white asbestos remains unshakeable. We are pressing the European Union to agree a ban quickly through an amendment to the marketing and use directive. We are also contributing to understanding the science surrounding asbestos, so that we can be sure that its substitutes are safer. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that is an important step.
We have freed inspectors from bureaucracy imposed by the previous Government to enable them to concentrate on their primary role of enforcing health and safety law. The cumbersome "minded to" procedure in enforcement practice was dropped on 1 April, and inspectors can now enforce the law as soon as they encounter a breach, instead of having first to put offenders on notice that that might happen later. My hon. Friend will agree that that is a step towards the higher standards that we all want.
We are particularly concerned to get the message across to employers that accidents at work and occupational ill health are neither inevitable nor acceptable. A strengthened HSE is only part of our approach, and we are doing more to prompt higher standards. Breaches of health and safety law should carry tougher penalties, as my hon. Friend said. He rightly pointed out that fines for

health and safety offences currently average about £2,500, and fines are often derisory, seeming not to reflect the seriousness of offences. We have begun discussions with the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary on the options available to address that problem. We want penalties to fit the crime, and to act as a deterrent to health and safety law breakers.
We need to create a culture that includes all those with an interest in reducing the toll of accidents and ill health. An approach based on partnership between employers and workers is in everyone's interest. We have seen such an approach at the European level, in our work with the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work, and at national level in the Health and Safety Commission. It can also work at company level.
If records for accidents and occupational ill health are to improve, employers need to manage health and safety effectively. To do that, they must involve their work force. A management system can succeed only if there is consultation with employees. No less than 25 years ago, the Robens committee, whose work led to the setting up of our present occupational health and safety system, identified involvement of the work force as a key factor in better self-regulation by industry. In spite of that, there has been less development and success on worker involvement than on many other aspects of the UK health and safety system.
Safety representatives have a vital role, as my hon. Friend said. Their commitment, and their experience of workplace conditions, enable them to identify potential problems where prompt action could lead to a healthier and safer workplace. It is, after all, those who do a job who know best what the hazards are. Employees, through their safety representatives, have an invaluable part to play in reducing risks in the workplace.
Safety representatives are important to the explanation of safety measures, and to securing a commitment from the work force. Safety procedures are effective only if those involved understand the reason for them; if not, procedures may all too often and all too easily be bypassed. Research carried out a few years ago, using data from the workplace industrial relations survey, showed that workplaces with trade union-appointed safety representatives and committees have up to 50 per cent. fewer injuries than those in which there was no consultation on health and safety.
In recent years, the role of safety representatives has been greatly undervalued, and we intend to redress that. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will hold regular meetings with safety representatives, which illustrates the value we place on their experience and views. As my hon. Friend pointed out, trade unions can offer safety representatives considerable support, such as training courses, information about workplace hazards and safety systems, and in some cases a national structure able to give advice on particular issues. That helps representatives to take an informed, independent role in health and safety issues. I hope that trade unions will appoint safety representatives wherever possible.
The regulations that give trade unions the right to appoint safety representatives are more than 20 years old. Over the past 20 years, the UK has moved away from being predominantly based in manufacturing and construction industries with highly unionised work forces; the service sector now provides 70 per cent. of


employment, and workers, especially outside the public sector, are less unionised. Often, they work part time or are self-employed.
Employers who do not recognise trade unions must by law consult employees on health and safety, directly or through elected representatives. The regulations that introduced that requirement have been in force for less than two years, and it is not yet clear how well they are working. Aspects may need to be reviewed, and the Health and Safety Executive plans to commission research this year to examine awareness of the 1996 regulations and their impact.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will launch new revised guidance tomorrow in support of the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989. That guidance was developed following research by Aberdeen university into the working of the regulations. The study confirmed that the regulations were working well, and that problem areas would be best addressed by strengthened guidance. Revised guidance will play an important part in ensuring that safety representatives offshore are able to fulfil their vital role effectively.
In too many workplaces, employers no longer recognise trade unions. The Government seek to create a fresh approach to industrial relations based on partnership rather than conflict, and that will benefit employees as well as improving competitive performance. We will soon publish a White Paper on fairness at work, containing a framework for a new era of employment relations based on decent standards and partnership.
Arrangements for health and safety consultation must be reviewed. The justification for variations in the law on consultation, such as differences in functions of union and non-union safety representatives, will need to be examined. The review will also consider ways to enhance the role of safety representatives, and whether steps can be taken to improve the effectiveness of consultation. I expect the Health and Safety Commission to carry out that work. My hon. Friend raised a number of interesting ideas, and I will ensure that they are considered in the review.
The review will need to cover roving safety representatives, a point forcibly made by my hon. Friend. I know that the Transport and General Workers Union recently carried out a pilot scheme on roving representatives in agriculture, and the lessons of that will help the review. Industry initiatives supported by employers and employees can help to improve health and safety standards. The practical implications of any proposed change to the law need to be carefully considered, however, and we intend to do that.
It is important that safety representatives should be given appropriate support by enforcing authorities. The HSE will take several initiatives to promote employee involvement, particularly relating to the role of safety representatives. The HSE's guidance to its inspectors on contacting employees or representatives has recently been revised—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LLOYDS TSB BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Llanelli/Dinefwr NHS Trust

Mr. Denzil Davies: How many representations he has received to date about his proposal to abolish Llanelli/Dinefwr NHS trust. [41413]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have received almost 2,500 pre-printed letters on this subject, as well as several petitions containing approximately 12,000 signatures. We have also held meetings to discuss the matter with hon. Members and others.

Mr. Davies: There has been much talk of consultation on the proposals. How does my hon. Friend propose to consult the citizens of Llanelli, who use the trust's services, and are satisfied with them? Perhaps we may look forward to a focus group or two—or a citizens jury, even—or perhaps we may have a one citizen, one vote referendum in Llanelli. Or is the reality that all this chatter about consultation is a charade and that the Welsh Office is determined to drive through the proposal without any regard for the views of my constituents?

Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend will know that I went to Llanelli to discuss the proposals when they were still at the gestation stage. The project team is currently holding meetings throughout the area to consult people on the development of the final proposal. As a consequence of the trust reconfiguration, I expect the accident and emergency services at Prince Philip hospital to be strengthened, and the MRI scanner there to be used more effectively and efficiently. At some stage in the consultation process, I shall be happy—in addition to all the other things that we do through our representative democracy—to visit Llanelli and see whether the proposals to improve the service have people's support.

Mr. Allan Rogers: My hon. Friend will be aware of the extreme disquiet in the northern part of the Bro Taf area about the proposals. I thank him for meeting me and others on a number of occasions. At one of those meetings, he promised that he would let those who were critical know the composition of the group that will be set up to examine the changes. Until now, we have heard nothing. We do not know who is involved. The nurses and other people involved at that level of operation have heard nothing about the proposals that are coming forward.

Mr. Griffiths: I shall ensure that my hon. Friend and others, and certainly staff in the health service, are well

aware of the work of the project team. Staff should already be well aware of it. The team's job is to make proposals which can show that the reconfiguration will benefit people living in the area.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Minister agree that hardly anybody is in favour of the abolition of the trust? There have been more visits by the Lord Chancellor to B and Q than there have been sightings of people in favour of the abolition of the Llanelli/Dinefwr hospital trust.
Is it not time that the Minister started to concentrate on the health of the people of Wales? We had to wait almost four months longer for publication of the health Green Paper than did England and Scotland. Tomorrow, we expect to learn that waiting lists have increased in Wales, as they have in the rest of the United Kingdom. Would it not have been far better to divert the £686,000 wasted on the publication of the devolution proposals in Wales and the £300,000 set aside for publicising the Welsh assembly when it is established next year to front-line services to help the people of Wales to get a better health service?

Mr. Griffiths: For a start, I have visited Llanelli far more times than any Lord Chancellor has ever visited B and Q; that was about the level of the hon. Gentleman's whole question.
We have already put £9.5 million into the health service to deal with winter emergencies, which was very successful. We have another £25 million, most of which is to go towards reducing waiting lists so that, by this time next year, they will be at the very least back to the level at which they stood when we entered office, and as part of a programme to continue to reduce them. Our public health Green Paper was produced absolutely on schedule—as I promised the hon. Gentleman it would be—and was generally welcomed in Wales. The reconfiguration of trusts will produce savings to the tune of £10 million, which will be spent on patient care, so that patients in Llanelli and elsewhere in Wales will receive a far better health service.

Aerospace Industry

Mr. Barry Jones: If he will make a statement on the prospects for the aerospace industry in Wales. [41414]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): Earlier this year, the Government demonstrated their support for the aerospace industry with the grant of launch aid to British Aerospace. That public-private partnership will secure more than 2,000 jobs throughout the United Kingdom and will provide a significant boost to British Aerospace at Broughton in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am therefore confident that prospects for the industry are extremely good.

Mr. Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend, his Department and his Ministers for the support that they have given to the industry in my constituency. Does he agree that the £123 million given by the Government to Airbus in my constituency means that it looks as though the next century will be greatly successful? Does he know that my constituents working for Raytheon Jets are


desperate for the Astor project to be won for them? Is there any way in which the Welsh Office can help in respect of the Astor project?

Mr. Davies: I shall certainly look carefully at the case my hon. Friend puts to me. When I visited the Raytheon facility with my hon. Friend, I was impressed by the attitude of both management and unions and the way in which they have come together in partnership. The partnership between management and unions at Raytheon and the public-private partnership that is largely responsible for the success of the British Aerospace project demonstrate that partnership is the way forward. I am confident that the two successes in my hon. Friend's constituency show the value of that approach. I am personally confident that it is good for my hon. Friend's constituency, good for Wales and good for Britain as a whole.

Mr. John Wilkinson: In addition to the good news about launch aid for the A340 500 and 600 aircraft in Broughton in north Wales, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), is it not welcome news that the pre-contract agreement between British Aerospace and Boeing allocates several hundred million pounds-worth of work to British Aerospace—it is to be hoped including at Broughton—in the event of the Royal Air Force procuring the C 17 heavy lifter, provided that the strategic defence review confirms that procurement?

Mr. Davies: Military procurement is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman has shown a close interest in the project and I am grateful for his support this afternoon.

EU Structural Funds

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: What representations he has received on the future of European structural funds for Wales. [41415]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): We have received numerous representations stressing the importance of structural funds for Wales.

Mr. Jones: Does the Minister recognise that, unless something happens very quickly, Wales could well be at the back of the queue when up to £1 billion of objective 1 money is secured? Does he realise that, with the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary battling for Scotland, and the DTI battling for South Yorkshire, Merseyside and Cornwall, Wales could lose out altogether? What assurances can he give that Wales will not lose out? The credibility of the Welsh Office is at stake on this matter.

Mr. Hain: I do not recognise any of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. I put it to him, in the friendliest possible fashion, that he should be working with the Welsh Office. The Secretary of State has met Commissioner Wulf-Mathies twice; I have met her once. We have made all possible representations throughout the system. Wales's case is well recognised and understood,

specifically in terms of NUTS 2 areas and generally in terms of low GDP within Europe. The hon. Gentleman's time would be better spent supporting the Welsh Office in what could be very difficult negotiations with the European Union.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Can my hon. Friend confirm press reports that he and fellow Ministers are deciding to adjust the assisted area status map in Wales as part and parcel of the case that he will make to Europe? If so, has he any assurance from Europe that, if such adjustments were made, we would obtain objective 1 status?

Mr. Hain: As my hon. Friend knows, the assisted area status question is separate from—although parallel with—the question of structural funds and NUTS 2 boundaries. We are reviewing the entire situation. I do not believe that the press reports that my hon. Friend mentions are accurate, but we are considering the best way of reconfiguring the assisted area map to ensure that Wales achieves the maximum benefit.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Can the Minister confirm that any adjustment to the assisted area status map could have a beneficial effect on applications for objective 1 status for other parts of Wales? Does he accept that Conservative Members are very keen for Europe to give proper support to the most hard-pressed parts of Wales? Can he assure the House, however, that, in anything that he does, he will not risk giving up existing assistance without a categorical assurance that he will receive from Europe a balancing assistance in return; that he is not risking throwing out the baby with the bath water; and that, ultimately, Wales will end up better off overall?

Mr. Hain: For once, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's constructive question on this matter, because he is obviously as aware as Ministers in the Welsh Office of the delicate balance that must be achieved. We do not want Wales to lose out in any way, but we want to ensure that such aid as can be attracted in is focused on those areas, not neglecting the valleys or west Wales, which suffered very badly under the Conservative Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.

Trunk Roads

Mr. Owen Paterson: What plans he has to improve trunk roads linking north and south Wales. [41417]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Improvements are needed, and these will be addressed in our review of the Welsh trunk roads programme.

Mr. Paterson: The A483–A5 road, south through Ruabon on to Shrewsbury, is the main link between north-east Wales and south Wales. It is currently single carriageway; it is subject to frequent accidents and delays. In the past five years, 25 people have been killed on that road. What plans does the Minister have to upgrade the Welsh stretch to dual carriageway? What discussions has he had with his English counterparts? Given the Secretary


of State's stated enthusiasm for the PFI initiative yesterday in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, has he discussed that means of finance to speed up the project?

Mr. Hain: The previous Conservative Government, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, had 18 years to solve these problems, but I recognise the point that he raises. Indeed, I believe that, word for word, it is the point that he made a couple of weeks ago, when he served his apprenticeship to the boy Nigel in the Welsh Grand Committee in Carmarthen. I answered it then as I answer it now: we recognise that the problem exists, and we shall do our best to solve it.

Mr. David Hanson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to improve road transport between north and south Wales is to take steps to remove cars and lorries from those roads? What steps can my hon. Friend take to ensure that transport links between north and south do not depend on roads alone, and, with other Departments, help to improve rail and air transport links, which are far more environmentally friendly?

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend expresses the position exactly as I see it. The A470 and A483 clearly need to be upgraded to improve north-south links, but the priority for the moment must be to establish—I am working on this actively—better air and rail links, because those are the areas of public transport policy which will enable us to address what is otherwise a difficult problem.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Minister take note of representations that I know he has received about the A483 on the boundary of my constituency with that of Montgomery? That important road is not even of trunk-road width and the planned improvements to it will not be completed for 12 months. Will the Minister do something to enable that work to be started much sooner so that we have a more effective north-south link?

Mr. Hain: I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point again. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tells me that, if the hon. Gentleman drives slowly at that point in mid-Wales, he may see red kites, which are of great interest to people in Wales generally.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: As the Minister has just said that it is important to upgrade the A470, why has he apparently shelved phase 2 of the Blaenau Ffestiniog to Betws-y-Coed road improvement scheme? I am grateful for the first phase, but without the second phase it is nonsense. If the hon. Gentleman is serious about upgrading the A470, this is a priority, and I ask him for a positive response.

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has identified a clear problem which is well recognised in the Welsh Office. Will he await the outcome of the roads review to see what progress we can make on the matter?

Social Exclusion

Mr. Martin Caton: If he will make a statement on his plans for tackling social exclusion in Wales. [41418]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): I announced on 1 May, the anniversary of our great election victory, a new social exclusion programme for Wales. The programme will tackle social exclusion in Wales through co-ordinated action to promote community development in six or more communities.

Mr. Caton: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the priorities in tackling social exclusion in Wales must be to deal with the problem of street homelessness? Can he assure me that, in tackling that problem, he is prepared to learn from best practice in other parts of the United Kingdom and, in particular, from the way in which the rough sleepers initiative has been implemented in England and Scotland?

Mr. Griffiths: I can assure my hon. Friend that we want to ensure that we have the best practice in community development to regenerate our deprived communities and, where homelessness is a serious problem, I shall certainly want to see it included in the projects that we approve.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Does the Minister think that his social exclusion policy is working for farmers and others in rural Wales? Does he not realise that, month by month, the agriculture crisis is becoming worse; that the need for direct assistance for farmers and farm workers is becoming greater; and that, while he and the Secretary of State mouth platitudes and blame everyone but themselves, Welsh farming is quietly starving to death? Does he appreciate that, despite our holding the European presidency, Welsh agriculture has gained nothing from Europe, and the incomes of some Welsh farmers are now 83 per cent. lower than they were last year? Has the time not come to stop giving us complacent soundbites and do something for the hard-pressed people of rural Wales?

Mr. Griffiths: It is about time that the right hon. Gentleman took the matter seriously rather than seeking soundbites from it. In homing in on the figure of 83 per cent, he knows that he is exaggerating. Total farm income—we accept the seriousness of the position—has gone down by 43 per cent., which is rather less than the figure that he has given.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: So that's all right, is it?

Mr. Griffiths: It is not all right, but let us deal with the problem in a serious fashion, not by soundbites. We have already provided some £155 million extra in England and Wales, which would not have been provided under Tory spending plans. We are already researching into beef and lamb to improve the quality of Welsh products. We predict that during the next decade Welsh farming will be in a far stronger position than that in which it was left by the previous Conservative Government, who caused BSE, the root of our present problems.

Mr. Michael Clapham: In the context of tackling social exclusion in Wales, will my hon. Friend initiate an Industrial Injuries


Advisory Council study to find out whether there is recent research showing that those suffering from respiratory diseases include slate quarrymen, so that slate quarrymen may be covered by the PD12 provisions for chronic bronchitis and emphysema?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend raises a serious matter, which would probably not come within the social exclusion programme, but my right hon. Friend is discussing it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

Parliamentary Representation

Mr. Andrew Robathan: What representations he has received regarding the number of hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies. [41419]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): Fewer than a dozen.

Mr. Robathan: Given that the Government are determined to foist on Wales an assembly which only one in four of the people wanted, will the Secretary of State take action to ensure that the over-representation of Wales in this House is reduced? He knows that there are 40 Welsh Members whereas according to English criteria there should be 32. Will he take action to reduce that over-representation?

Mr. Davies: No, I will not. The basis of the representation of Welsh constituencies in the House was determined in 1944 by a Speaker's Commission. There are no proposals to change that. When we debated the Government of Wales Bill, there were no such proposals from the hon. Gentleman or from the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). The assembly that we propose, and for which the people of Wales voted on 18 September, does not have any legislative function: accordingly, there is no case to be made for the number of Welsh Members of Parliament to be reduced.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, in 70 years, there have been only seven women Members of Parliament from Wales? Will he join me in congratulating the Wales Labour party, which last Saturday decided to introduce a system of twinning by constituencies to ensure that there is fair representation of women and men in the Welsh assembly?

Mr. Davies: I am anxious to ensure that the Welsh assembly is representative of the whole of our society in Wales. It is therefore important that we ensure that women are properly represented. Positive discrimination, as my hon. Friend knows, is a difficult matter. My party resolved on Saturday to adopt the policy of twinning, which now has my whole-hearted support. I look forward to my colleagues in the Labour party in Wales working vigorously to implement that policy so that we have fair representation in the assembly.

Unemployment

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: If he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in Wales. [41420]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): According to the labour force survey, in the period January to March 1998 unadjusted unemployment in Wales was 97,000, a rate of 7.5 per cent.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that there is still a wide divide between the unemployment levels in the eastern part of Wales and in the western part and the old coalfield areas? Does not that underline the need for that area to be accepted as a NUTS 2 area for regional planning, particularly in the European context? That being so, why was it possible for the Office for National Statistics to have a map for Cornwall out in Eurostat on 30 June last year, but no map for Wales? Who in London is standing between Wales and Europe to stop us getting that map in?

Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman's point about the plight of west Wales in terms of joblessness, low gross domestic product and many other economic indicators is well understood by the entire Government. That is why the case put forward by the Welsh Office for west Wales and the valleys to be a NUTS 2 classified area is being pressed vigorously. I ask him and all other Welsh Members to support us in that endeavour.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Since the glorious 1 May last year, Welsh Office Ministers have made welcome promises about reducing the imbalance between south-east Wales and south-west Wales. May I gently remind my hon. Friend that we are still waiting for a change in practice?

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a strong point and, as a fellow south-west Wales Member, I understand it very well. That is why we are pressing hard to get the maximum amount of investment, inward and otherwise, into west Wales. We shall continue to do that, but we cannot turn around immediately the dreadful legacy of neglect of west Wales that the Conservatives bequeathed us. We are doing our best to tackle that appalling legacy.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that European Union structural funds have a role to play in reducing unemployment in Wales? Does he therefore share my regret that there are serious delays in those European Union funds being released and spent in Wales?

Mr. Hain: The situation is far more complicated than that, and, if the hon. Lady were a Welsh Member of Parliament, she would recognise that fact.

Freight Transport

Mr. John Smith: If he will make a statement on the freight transport strategy for Wales. [41421]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): My hon. Friend will be aware that, on Monday this week, I announced plans for a £15 million European rail freight terminal at Wentlooge, which will open in 1999. It is a very exciting project, which will bring huge benefits to the economy and the environment of Wales. It is a major


step forward in the Government's encouragement of rail freight instead of road freight. The Government will shortly publish a United Kingdom transport White Paper setting out our integrated transport policies, including further measures to encourage and develop freight transport. At around the same time, I will publish a complementary transport policy statement for Wales, which will reflect the particular circumstances and transport needs in Wales.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful for that reply. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement this week of a rail freight terminal in Cardiff that will serve to make Wales one of the most attractive investment locations in Europe by providing direct rail freight access to the largest consumer market in the world? Will he contrast his decision, which was taken one year into a new Labour Government, with the actions of his predecessors, the Tory Secretaries of State, who prevaricated and damagingly delayed the decision—and especially the lamentable Leader of the Opposition who is still damaging our business and trading relationships with Europe?

Mr. Davies: I am far too modest to claim personal credit for the project, but I can recall two years ago pressing the then Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), to pull his finger out and get on with the job. He failed to do so, but I am delighted to say that this is yet another resounding success for the new Labour Government.

Farming

Mr. Tim Collins: What representations he has received concerning assistance for farming in Wales. [41422]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): My right hon. Friend and I have received considerable numbers of representations, both written and oral, in respect of the condition of Welsh agriculture since the start of the crisis, and we continue to do so.

Mr. Collins: Now that the Minister has been in charge of Welsh agriculture for more than a year, during which time it has endured probably its worst 12 months for half a century, will he review his policies and actually do something for Welsh farmers?

Mr. Griffiths: We have already done a lot for Welsh farmers. They have received more than £12 million from the agrimoney compensation scheme and £70 million has gone into the cattle traceability and specified risk material regulations in order to give consumers confidence in British beef, and in Welsh beef in particular. We have initiated a research programme for lamb and beef to help raise the quality of both products. We are promoting a very strong food strategy to give Welsh farmers confidence in the future, and I am sure that, before our term has ended, we will have taken considerable steps to revive the Welsh economy.

Ms Jackie Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) has a very short memory if he has forgotten that Welsh agriculture is in a mess primarily because of the BSE crisis, which the Conservatives ignored and which the present Secretary of State for Wales was first to bring to their attention? Bearing in mind the fact that a document about the crisis in Welsh agriculture was published today, will my hon. Friend support calls for the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the role of supermarkets in the supply chain and the vertical restraints within it?

Mr. Griffiths: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall examine carefully all the recommendations from the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. We know that the Committee took a great deal of evidence, which gave it cause for concern, about the way in which the market works. We shall be prepared to discuss those matters with other Departments to try to ensure that we have the best response possible.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister deny that just 10 minutes ago he said that farm incomes have fallen by 43 per cent.?

Mr. Griffiths: I shall not deny it. Total farm incomes have fallen by 43 per cent.

Parc Prison (Deaths)

Ann Clwyd: If he will request the Home Office to conduct an inquiry into the recent deaths at Parc prison in Bridgend. [41423]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): I understand that the Prison Service has already made arrangements for investigations to be carried out into both the recent apparent self-inflicted deaths at Parc prison. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office with responsibilities for prisons and probation has also asked the Director General of the Prison Service for a report on the current situation at Parc prison.

Ann Clwyd: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. However, may I tell him of my concern? One of my constituents is believed to have committed suicide at Parc prison last year. There has still not been an inquest seven months later. Given the criticisms made by the Public Accounts Committee of Parc prison—understaffing, a lack of specialist staff and the fact that Wales has more overcrowded prisons than most parts of Britain—will my hon. Friend give this matter his urgent attention?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend will know that Parc prison is in my constituency. I can reassure her that I pursued all the matters that she has raised as constituency questions and that the Prison Service and the Minister with responsibilities for prisons are also taking steps to deal with issues relating to suicide in general.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Unemployment (European Union)

Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the level of unemployment in the EU.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before answering the question, let me say that I gather, Madam Speaker, that today is your anniversary of 25 years as a Member of Parliament. On behalf of the whole House, congratulations.
Promoting employment and tackling unemployment are key features of our presidency and will be a major focus of our discussions at the Cardiff European Council in June.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Do not the horrific levels of unemployment in the European Union of more than 15 million in each of the past six years—it is now 10 per cent. compared with 4.6 per cent. in America and 3.6 per cent. in Japan—show that the EU and its policies are not a recipe for job creation? As every previous currency experiment in the world has ended up in disaster and more unemployment—[Interruption]—yes, they have, and that is a fact—could the Prime Minister at least give the people of Britain an assurance that, if they opt against the euro clearly and decisively in the referendum, he will honour his pledge and look for a new arrangement with Europe rather than bringing forward a repeat referendum?

The Prime Minister: On the last point, we are not actually at the stage of having a referendum yet. I should not want to bind the hands of a future Parliament. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I simply say to him that I believe that there needs to be economic reform in Europe. That is one of the reasons why we put this on the agenda for the Cardiff European Council. I also point out that there are a variety of levels of unemployment in Europe. Some of the countries that want to join monetary union have lower levels of unemployment than we do.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's position on monetary union, but it is a position that is against monetary union whatever the economic consequences. The truth of the matter is that, after yesterday's speech, the Leader of the Opposition has joined with the hon. Gentleman and his shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry against the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that that is an interesting decision.

Engagements

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 May.

The Prime Minister: Today, I had meetings with Ministers and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today. Later today, I shall be visiting Northern Ireland to assist efforts in bringing about a decisive yes vote in Friday's referendum, which I believe to be the only result that can offer peace and stability in the future.

Mr. Morgan: With the Scotland Bill having received Third Reading last night and with democratic devolution

therefore certain to be a reality in Scotland and Wales next summer, cannot the benefits of constitutional change in the United Kingdom be kept going in its momentum if the land of St. Patrick joins with the countries of St. David and St. Andrew by voting yes in Friday's referendum?

The Prime Minister: I agree. As I just said, a yes vote in Friday's referendum is important. After all, the agreement puts the principle of consent—no change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of people in Northern Ireland—right at the heart of politics in Northern Ireland and, indeed, in the Republic of Ireland, for the first time, and gives Northern Ireland, through the assembly, a chance to govern more of its own affairs directly in Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Hague: I second the congratulations that the Prime Minister has given to you, Madam Speaker, and support what he said about Northern Ireland.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that tomorrow's figures will show a further rise in hospital waiting lists, demonstrating the Government's complete and utter failure to meet their early pledge of reducing waiting lists?

The Prime Minister: It is correct that waiting lists are going up—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] However, we have pledged to reduce waiting lists, and reduce them we shall. We did not pledge that we would do so in our first year in office, but we have put some £2 billion more into the national health service than the previous Government, and we shall ensure that the pledge that we gave on waiting lists is put into practice before the next election.

Mr. Hague: So it is true that hospital waiting lists will rise further. Will the Prime Minister now give us the figures? Why does he not have the courage to give them? They can be leaked to national newspapers, and the Secretary of State for Health can discuss them on the radio, but the official announcement has to take place after Prime Minister's Question Time and at the beginning of a recess. The Prime Minister promised to cut waiting lists by 100,000 as an "early pledge". It is now rumoured that waiting lists are up by 130,000 since the general election. Is not the Prime Minister even a little bit embarrassed about that?

The Prime Minister: As I have just explained, we accept that waiting lists are going up, but the only way to get them back down is to put the necessary extra investment into the health service. As I explained, we have already put some £2 billion more than the figure in Conservative spending plans into the health service, and we shall put more money in over the next few years. However, that extra money will be put into the health service when it is consistent with prudent public finance to spend it. It will be put in alongside reform and change within the health service to ensure that the money—which is far in excess of what the Conservative Government put in—is spent wisely.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister's "early pledge" in the election did not come with all those footnotes and excuses. After more than a year in office, his excuses are beginning to wear thin. If he is not embarrassed that he has broken his promise on waiting lists, is he embarrassed


about his "early pledge" to cut class sizes? Can he confirm the rumour that figures—also to be published, surprise, surprise, tomorrow after Question Time and before the recess—will show that class sizes have risen since the general election?

The Prime Minister: As we have said, class sizes have risen since the election. They have had to, because of the spending plans that we inherited from the previous Government. Furthermore, we would have been able to get class sizes down if, for nine months, the Conservative party had not opposed the Bill to reduce class sizes by phasing out assisted places.

Mr. Hague: Not only are the Prime Minister's excuses wearing thin, but blaming somebody else is less and less convincing. He promised to cut waiting lists and they have gone up; he promised to cut class sizes and they have gone up; he promised, as an early pledge, low interest rates and low inflation, and they are now at a six-year high. Those are three of his five early pledges. Does he not wish that he gave an early pledge to bring chaos to the Foreign Office? At least one Minister would then have delivered. Does he understand that, when he called them "early pledges", people thought that he meant early in the Parliament, not early next century?

The Prime Minister: We set out those pledges and we shall meet every single one of them. Waiting lists and class sizes went up for years under the previous Government. We shall bring them back down. We have already put additional resources into health and £2.5 billion more into education. When we meet those pledges—as we shall before the next election, as we promised—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will congratulate us.

Mr. Hague: In just one year, a man with confident early pledges has become full of meaningless waffle. The Prime Minister told the British people, "Things can only get better." The fact is that waiting lists have got worse, class sizes have got worse and inflation has got worse. Was the Daily Mirror right when it said that he should not be embarrassed; he should be ashamed?

The Prime Minister: No, because, as I have just pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, under the Government of which he was a member, waiting lists and class sizes went up year on year on year. I should explain to him that waiting lists went up for the four years before we took office—I think that Conservative Members should know the facts—and class sizes went up for 10 years in a row before we took office. Despite Conservative opposition, we have got the Bill on class sizes through. From this September, 100,000 children will be taken out of higher class sizes for the first time in years, and health service waiting lists will be brought back down. When they are, we shall see what he has to say.

Mr. Eric Martlew: May I bring the Prime Minister back to the referendum? Is he aware that there is great interest and great concern on both sides of the Irish sea about the matter? There is a feeling on the mainland that, to an extent, people are excluded, because they cannot vote. We have supported Ulster for the past 30 years, financially and with the armed forces but,

if Ulster votes no or if determined politicians in Ulster wreck the agreement, is it likely that there would be grave concern and a backlash in this country? Would it be much more difficult to carry forward the policies that we have carried forward in the past 30 years?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, I very much hope that people vote yes. I have said throughout that, even if people were to vote no, the Government of the United Kingdom would stand ready to take the matter forward in the best way that we could. Plainly, we shall have a far better chance of stability and prosperity if the agreement, which is fair and reasonable, is accepted by the people in Northern Ireland. If it is accepted by them, I hope that the politicians who are elected to the assembly have the desire and purpose to make it work for the people whom they represent.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Is it not clear that, not only here but throughout the United Kingdom and across the international community, people are wishing and willing the Northern Irish people to cast a decisive yes vote on Friday? Does the Prime Minister accept that there is work to be done to reassure some people, especially in the Unionist community? Will he confirm that the British and the Irish Governments are prepared jointly to act, very robustly, against any dissident minority group that uses violence to frustrate the expressed will of the Northern Irish people? In particular, will he confirm that anyone committing such an act after a yes vote on Friday cannot expect to receive the benefits of the provisions on prisoner release in the Good Friday agreement?

The Prime Minister: Yes, that is right on both counts. There is no question of people who are engaged in, or threatening, violence having the benefit of any part of the agreement in respect of seats in the Northern Ireland Executive or accelerated prisoner release. I have made it clear, as have the Republic of Ireland Government, that we shall take the firmest measures possible to deal with any dissident splinter groups that may carry on violence and acts of terrorism. The agreement, if it goes through the referendums in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, will represent the settled will of the people—in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. Anyone who then goes against the agreement by using violence or terrorism can expect no let-up and no mercy from either the British or Irish Governments.

Yvette Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a new report from the Centre for Economic Performance, which shows that the persistent pay gap between men and women is largely a result of the absence of family-friendly employment practices in the workplace and that, for example, access to maternity leave reduces the pay gap? Will he assure the House that family-friendly employment policies will be at the heart of the Government's fairness-at-work agenda and that Government Departments will take a lead in putting those policies into practice?

The Prime Minister: Yes, and that is in addition to three other measures that we are taking which will improve the friendliness of employment policy towards the family. The first is, obviously, child care. The second is the statutory minimum wage and the third is to ensure that part-time workers are treated as fairly and with the same rights and entitlements as full-time workers.

Ministerial Visits

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When he next intends to visit the Macclesfield constituency.

The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Winterton: Is the Prime Minister aware that I am genuine when I ask him to come to the borough of Macclesfield, which has been Conservative controlled for decades; where, at the last local elections, we gained two seats from Labour and two from his friends, the Liberal Democrats; where the borough council and chamber of commerce recently organised a highly successful business exhibition to promote local industry and commerce; where Macclesfield Town football club, affectionately known as the blues or the silkmen, gained promotion to the second division, having come up from non-league football only the previous year; and where we are opening our own community radio station, Silk FM, on Monday? Will he come to Macclesfield to see Conservative success at work, rather than merely talking about success? I am genuine when I say that I want Macclesfield's success to be spread throughout the country. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has accepted an invitation to come at the beginning of July.

The Prime Minister: Despite having no plans to visit Macclesfield, I now know an awful lot about it. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his result in the council elections. However, he will know that there was an 8.5 per cent. swing to Labour at the general election, but the truth is that neither of us did quite as well as his football team.

Engagements

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Following last week's disturbing developments in India, will the Prime Minister commit the Government to urgent and strenuous action both to discourage nuclear proliferation and to give fresh impetus to the process of multilateral nuclear disarmament?

The Prime Minister: Along with our G8 partners, we have condemned India's recent nuclear tests and urged it—and, indeed, other states in the region—to refrain from further tests and the deployment of nuclear or ballistic weapons. We have also called on India unconditionally to sign up to the comprehensive test ban treaty. It is very important that it does so.
As my hon. Friend may also know, I have spoken to the Pakistani Prime Minister within the past couple of days. I congratulate the Pakistani Government on the restraint that they have shown so far and urge them to continue to do so. I ask them also to look at the example of Brazil and Argentina, which could have gone down the road of nuclear testing, but decided not to. Nuclear testing is not the way for countries to enhance their standing in the world.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: On the question of hospital waiting lists, may I remind the Prime Minister of this fact? A little over a year ago, when he was Leader

of the Opposition, waiting lists in hospitals were 1.1 million and he described the NHS as "in crisis". Today, after a year of his Government, they are 1.3 million. If 1.1 million equals a crisis in the NHS, how does the Prime Minister describe 1.3 million, or is he, like the Secretary of State for Health, frankly embarrassed?

The Prime Minister: No. We recognise that waiting lists have grown, despite the extra money that we have put in. I point out that, like class sizes, waiting lists were growing for several years before we came to power. It was important, first, to put extra money into the health service, which we did. We put more money into health and education than the Liberal Democrats were asking for. However, that had to be consistent with strong control on public finances. Since the general election last year, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party have been asking for ever more spending on everything as well as demanding that we raise no revenue whatever. That is simply not a credible economic position.
Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman: we made the pledge and, once we have sorted out the public finances and put extra investment into the national health service, we shall meet our pledge. The people of this country trust us with the national health service that we created a great deal more than they trusted the Conservative Government who undermined it.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Prime Minister meet the Royal British Legion to discuss the problems of those in receipt of war widows' pension and war disablement pension in local authorities that do not disregard the pensions for the purposes of housing benefit? The majority of local authorities—including Sedgefield and Thurrock—under the control of all political parties, do the right thing and disregard the pensions. A minority are unfair to the recipients of those pensions and unfair to the local authorities that do the honourable and right thing. The problem requires prime ministerial intervention because attempts to remedy the wrong are being blocked. I hope that my right hon. Friend will undertake at least to consider the issue.

The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to consider it, but my hon. Friend will know that discussions about the problem have been going on for a considerable time. It is for local authorities ultimately to make their own decisions, but we shall continue to keep the matter under review and under discussion.

Mr. Paul Burstow: Will the Prime Minister set aside the smoke and mirrors that he used to answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) a few moments ago and explain to my constituents how he translates an early pledge to cut waiting lists in my area into a 38 per cent. increase in the waiting lists at St. Helier hospital and a forecast of a fourfold increase, within a year, in the number of people waiting for 17 months? How can that be an early pledge that has been fulfilled when so many of my constituents will be waiting far longer under Labour?

The Prime Minister: Just on the point about the length of waiting time, let me say that there are now no 18-month


waiting times, and the number of over-12-month waiters is decreasing. On the numbers on waiting lists, the answer is to achieve both investment and reform in the national health service. As I said to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) a moment ago, we have spent more money on the national health service than Liberal Democrats were asking for before the election. It will take time to fulfil our pledge, but I did not say that we would do it in the first year; I said that we would implement the pledge, and we shall. As I said to the Leader of the Opposition a few moments ago, when we implement the pledge, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be among the first on his feet to congratulate us.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the national child care strategy published yesterday? That document has already been warmly welcomed in my constituency. Will he also take the opportunity to encourage people to enter into the dialogue that the document recommends, so that real partnerships can exist between local people, local authorities and the Government in delivering that important policy development?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The proposals will dramatically increase the availability of child care. Indeed, with the measures already announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, they will allow thousands of people who do not have access to proper child care at present to get it. That will greatly ameliorate the position of people who are trying to juggle work and family life. In addition, we have to make sure that properly qualified people are operating in child care provision, and that is one of the reasons for the announcement that we made a couple of days ago. I am pleased that it has received such a wide welcome everywhere.

Mr. Norman Baker: Does the Prime Minister endorse the recent Cabinet Office report into the Government Information Service, which, in paragraph 57, encourages neutral civil servants to damp down bad news? Is that why the Department of Health is spending £86,000 on a rebuttal unit? Which does the Prime Minister think my constituents in Polegate and elsewhere would prefer: more spin doctors to explain why waiting lists are going up, or more real doctors to start getting waiting lists down?

The Prime Minister: First, as I understand it, it is not a rebuttal unit. Secondly, ultimately, we have to get extra money into the national health service to get waiting lists down. We can do that if we have prudent and proper control of public finances. As I said, since the general election, we have put £2 billion more into the health service. It will take time—of course it will—to get waiting lists, and class sizes, down. However, we shall deliver those pledges, and we shall do so after having had year upon year of a Conservative Government raising waiting lists and class sizes. When we go to the country at the next general election, people will see the difference between a Labour Government who have kept their promises and a Tory Government who broke theirs.

Mr. Paul Goggins: Given the reluctance of some G8 leaders to make progress on the issue of debt relief, what hope does the

Prime Minister hold out to the tens of thousands of people who formed the human chain last Saturday in Birmingham and, more importantly, to the tens of millions of people who live in the poorest countries of the world, that the highly indebted poor countries initiative can be made more flexible and more generous?

The Prime Minister: That was one of the things that we discussed and acted upon at the G8 summit. The international community has been aware of the problems of foreign debt for many years, and has in fact forgiven some £8 billion-worth of debt since 1995. Indeed, going back even further, the United Kingdom has forgiven some £1.2 billion-worth of debt. Under the highly indebted poor countries initiative, another £3 billion-worth of debt relief has already been pledged to six countries, with several other countries embarking on the process. The aim is to get all the countries into the process by 2000. We agreed further provisions at the G8 summit that will allow interim relief for countries that are in the process but have not yet fully completed it. As a result of those measures—although we still believe that much more still can and should be done—we shall have made significant progress in reducing debt for the poorest countries.

Mr. Roger Gale: I put to the Prime Minister a question on an issue for which he has direct responsibility. The European Union has no figures on the cost in loss of jobs of the abolition of duty-free trade. The European Commission said that it would conduct an inquiry into the matter; the European Commission has not done so. The Government hold the presidency of the European Commission. Why does the Prime Minister say in a parliamentary answer only that he would simply "not oppose" such an inquiry if one were to be proposed? He is in government—why does he not do something about it?

The Prime Minister: We have had Conservative party hypocrisy on the national health service, but that one takes the biscuit. The reason why I could say only that is that, in 1991, the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported agreed to the abolition of duty-free sales in the European Union. Therefore, unless we can get all 15 countries to reverse the position, the abolition will remain. That is why we said what we have said. There is no evidence that other countries are prepared to support reversing the position. If the hon. Gentleman is to lay the blame anywhere, he should lay it on the Government whom he supported—who, in 1991, were responsible for the policy that he is now criticising.

Mr. Chris Mullin: May I gently put it to the Prime Minister that our protests over the Indian nuclear tests would carry more weight if we were not so keen on nuclear weapons ourselves? Does he recall that two previous Labour Governments—those of Lords Attlee and Callaghan—developed nuclear weapons in secret, even from their own Cabinets, never mind from the British public? Will he give an undertaking that his Labour Government will do no such thing?

The Prime Minister: The undertaking that I give will be to combine maximum openness consistent with national security.

Mr. John M. Taylor: How is it that MI6 knew about the activities of Sandline for weeks,


if not months, as did his officials, but not the Foreign Secretary? Has he not given the impression of misleading the House last Tuesday?

The Prime Minister: No. The Foreign Secretary corrected the facts as soon as he knew of them. Of course, all of that will be looked into by the inquiry of Sir Thomas Legg. We have done a little research. From last May to this April, not a single question was tabled by the shadow Foreign Secretary or his deputy. On 12 March—that great debate at which the Opposition say we should have explained everything—not a single Tory Front Bencher even turned up. The only person who mentioned the allegations in question was the Minister of State. I think that that shows the seriousness with which we should treat the allegations that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Mr. Brian White: Does the Prime Minister recognise that there are people in

Northern Ireland who will be tempted to vote no on Friday, because they believe that that way would strengthen the Union? Is not the best way forward for the people of Northern Ireland to take this historic opportunity to vote yes and support what the majority of the people of Great Britain want, which is a yes vote on Friday?

The Prime Minister: Yes because, of course, the agreement does two things for which those in the Unionist cause have been fighting for many years. First, it entrenches the principle of consent—no change to the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people—and secondly, there is the Northern Ireland assembly. That is balanced by fair and equal treatment for people whatever the part of the community they come from. That is the reason why those who have been fighting for such a long period of time for those two principles should come out and vote yes on Friday.

G8 Summit

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the G8 summit in Birmingham last weekend. Since they are relevant, I will also touch on the European Union-United States summit in London on Monday and the World Trade Organisation meeting I attended yesterday in Geneva. I have placed in the Library of the House the documents issued at those events.
I start by warmly congratulating Birmingham on how it played its part as host. The city looked magnificent and the preparations impressed all the visiting leaders, their delegations and visiting members of foreign media. I take this opportunity to make clear to the city council and the people of Birmingham our gratitude for all their efforts and for their forbearance over any disruption the summit caused.
After last year's Denver summit, I said that we hoped to make this year's summit smaller, more focused, more businesslike and less formal than some recent summits. I am pleased to report that those objectives were achieved. Indeed, the new format has proved sufficiently successful for Germany, which is to host next year's summit, to decide to follow suit. This was clearly also the first summit for the whole G8 and I was particularly delighted that President Yeltsin was able to play a full part in our discussions.
The Asian financial crisis of the past year put economic issues firmly back at the centre of the summit agenda. It is vital that we learn the lessons for the future. We must, as far as we can, prevent a repetition and at least ensure that future warning signals can be seen by all at an earlier stage. We therefore endorsed a report from G7 Finance Ministers on strengthening the global financial system. That sets out concrete proposals for improving the transparency of the international financial system and national financial data, introducing codes of good practice with publicity for those who fall short, strengthening national financial systems to cope with global capital flows and involving the private sector more closely in resolving those crises—effectively a set of international financial standards countries can sign up to as a way of rewarding good practice. We asked our Finance Ministers to seek rapid decisions in the appropriate forums and to report back to us without delay.
We expressed our support for Japan's efforts to revitalise its economy, which will be essential for Asia's economic recovery, and welcomed the launch of monetary union.
We also discussed the wider implications of the Asia crisis, emphasising that economic reform can be soundly based only where political legitimacy exists. That requires political accountability and transparency, too. In particular, we issued a message on the urgent need for political reform in Indonesia to accompany economic change. Events since have served only to confirm that.
We unanimously condemned India's nuclear tests, urged restraint on neighbouring countries and called on both India and Pakistan to adhere unconditionally to the comprehensive test ban and non-proliferation treaties. There was grave concern at the implication of India's action for international security, and agreement that the action had reduced India's standing in the world and her ability to play a central role.
We delivered clear messages on the importance of maintaining momentum in the middle east peace process and of ensuring a real dialogue in Kosovo that would lead to concrete measures to lower tension and stop violence.
We devoted considerable time to the problems of developing countries, particularly those in Africa. We committed ourselves to reach the internationally agreed targets for reducing poverty, maintaining a substantial flow of aid and untying it wherever possible to make it more efficient. We supported the World Health Organisation "roll-back malaria" initiative, to which Britain will be contributing £60 million. The aim is to cut radically by 2010 the death rate of a disease that strikes, above all, the poor of the world.
We also devoted considerable attention to the reduction of the burden of debt on the most heavily indebted poor countries. Birmingham marks a significant step forward in the pursuit of the Government's policy of setting targets for the year 2000. In particular, the G8 countries are now signed up to the Mauritius mandate target that all eligible highly indebted poor countries are at least in the debt relief process by 2000, and to granting interim relief where necessary. Particular attention will now be given to meeting the immediate needs of poor post-conflict countries, especially those in Africa. Moreover, we all agreed to forgive aid-related debt to reforming least-developed countries—a step which Britain has already taken.
We are not, however, satisfied by those steps. I pay tribute to the Jubilee 2000 campaign and its dignified breaking-the-chain demonstration in Birmingham on Saturday. The issue is vast and complex, and it cannot be solved overnight—we have to mix our realism with our idealism. For debt relief to be effective, recipient countries must be committed to policies that ensure that the benefits reach the poor. However, I am in no doubt that we must do more.
Birmingham was notable for the extent of agreement on the environment agenda, including our common determination to make the Kyoto agreement on climate change a reality through tough domestic action, developing international trading and other mechanisms and drawing in the developing countries over time.
Also on the economic side, we discussed our national action plans to promote employability and inclusion, to help the young and long-term unemployed, to encourage entrepreneurs and to make the tax and benefit system more employment friendly while promoting lifelong learning. Here, too, there is growing consensus among the G8 countries. None of us can be content while unemployment remains so high despite our relative prosperity.
We discussed the growing threat of transnational crime as borders become more open and we all become more dependent on information technology. That requires ever closer co-operation between our Governments and law enforcement agencies, including joint law enforcement action. The G8 countries have made real progress since the Lyon summit two years ago, but we agreed new steps to make our fight against crime more effective. We endorsed a 10-point action plan on high-tech crime, and an intensification of action against money laundering and financial crime. We underlined the increasing dangers of official corruption from the proceeds of crime, the need


for further action against trafficking in human beings and the rising threat of the illegal firearms trade. A ministerial meeting in Moscow will pursue that further next year.
We welcomed the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly special session on drugs and confirmed our determination to pursue a comprehensive strategy to tackle all aspects of the drug problem—production, transport and consumption.
Finally, we discussed the huge challenge posed by the millennium bug and agreed on further action to ensure the right level of international awareness and preparedness. The United Kingdom is contributing £10 million to the World bank trust fund to help developing countries to tackle the problem.
Immediately afterwards, President Clinton, Jacques Santer and I met in London for the six-monthly EU-US summit. Our discussions focused on two key issues: resolving our long-standing differences over US sanctions on Iran, Libya and Cuba; and launching a new transatlantic trade initiative.
Negotiations on the serious problems of extra-territorial jurisdiction raised by the Helms-Burton and Iran-Libya sanctions Acts have been going on for more than a year.
The United States Administration are now committed to waivers for European Union companies under the two Acts, and will resist attempts by Congress to push through similar legislation in the future. At the same time, we reaffirmed our joint commitment to countering proliferation and terrorism. As a result, our companies can now invest with far greater predictability, and we have reinforced EU-US co-operation against unacceptable policies. That was a major step forward.
The agreements also paved the way for a major new EU-US trade initiative, the transatlantic economic partnership, to remove remaining barriers to trade across the Atlantic and provide more effective co-operation in developing the world trading system.
Yesterday, I was in Geneva for the 50th anniversary of the general agreement on tariffs and trade to make clear Britain's continued championing of the cause of free trade. We must continue to resist protectionism, not least in the wake of the Asian economic crisis. A major challenge that we face is to manage the movement towards free trade so that all can participate and benefit. Developing countries must be able to take full advantage of the opportunities, so I was pleased to announce some $10 million of technical assistance to help those countries to prepare.
Finally, I should mention the support that I found in both Birmingham and Geneva for the Northern Ireland agreement. The good will towards the people of Northern Ireland was remarkable and heart warming, and confirmed that stability and peace in Northern Ireland have every chance of being reinforced by a boom in investment and prosperity from right round the world.
It is important that Britain plays a strong, international role in support of sound economic and political policies throughout the world, as a champion of free trade, and in the fight against international crime. I believe that the summits contributed to those goals and that the results were good for Britain and for other countries.

Mr. William Hague: May I join the Prime Minister in the congratulations that he extended

to the city of Birmingham and endorse what he said about Northern Ireland? It is good to know that, when we go to Belfast this afternoon, we will take with us the support of so many friends and allies. Let us hope that the people of Northern Ireland grasp the chance to turn the agreement into a lasting peace.
I welcome, too, the strong commitment to continuing trade and investment liberalisation to which Heads of Government have signed up through the World Trade Organisation. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to confirm the Government's support for the goal of achieving worldwide free trade by 2020?
Does the Prime Minister regret the failure of the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union, under his chairmanship, even to have Sir Leon Brittan's plan for a free trade area of Europe and America on the agenda of the EU-US summit? Can he confirm that that plan, which aimed for the abolition of industrial tariffs by 2010 and a free trade area in services, was effectively dropped; that 14 EU member states and the United States were in favour of pressing on with the plan; and that the episode shows once again that the Government's presidency of the EU has often produced little other than platitudes and press releases?
I welcome the acknowledgement in Birmingham of the need for structural reform to encourage growth and job creation in the world economy, but does the Prime Minister recognise that it is far easier to talk about the need for structural reform than it is to implement measures that will create jobs and prosperity? Does he recognise that the current low unemployment in Britain is the result not of communiques but of labour market reforms pioneered by the previous Government, and that some of the current Government's policies threaten those reforms?
May I offer my support for the points made in the G8 communiqué about the former Yugoslavia? The future of Bosnia will be in the balance this year, and everyone in the House hopes that a stable and prosperous state can be created. I hope that the Prime Minister will share my concern that there is the potential for another disastrous ethnic conflict in Kosovo. Will he argue for the return of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe monitoring force, to promote confidence within the province, and join us in urging President Milosevic to allow confidence-building measures to be put in place and to restore Kosovo's autonomy?
It was right that debt relief should have been high on the summit's agenda. We will support the Government if they continue to give a lead to other donors, such as the G8 countries, the World bank and the International Monetary Fund in promoting well-thought-out debt reduction programmes that offer the prospect of sustainable economic growth.
I am sure that the Prime Minister will recognise the enormous contribution of the previous Government and former Conservative Chancellors. Indeed, the G8 countries are continuing the initiative begun by the previous Government to help the most indebted countries. Why did the summit fail to convince other Governments to widen the debt reduction agenda as we had all hoped?
Will the Prime Minister note the Opposition's concern for the future of Indonesia, and our deep regret at the loss of life? Does he have any plans to review the agreements


that international financial institutions have made with Indonesia? If not, will he confirm that he intends them to be implemented fully and swiftly?
Does the Prime Minister accept that the summit's response to events in India appeared confused? The G8 nations were unable to put together a united response to the nuclear tests carried out by India. Does the United Kingdom support sanctions, like the United States, or the ending of arms exports, like Canada, or the approach of the French and Russian Governments, both of whom made it clear that they are not contemplating such measures?
The G8 summit appears to have been better organised and more productive than some other conferences that the Prime Minister has chaired recently. Could that have anything to do with the fact that the Foreign Secretary was not there? Is the Prime Minister claiming the credit for that success, or did the Foreign Secretary simply fail to notice the invitation in his red box? In the interests of maintaining good relations with as many countries as possible, will the Prime Minister undertake to repeat that success at future summits?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The right hon. Member will not be occupying the chair.

The Prime Minister: No, I think not.
We remain committed to free trade worldwide. As the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) knows, we strongly supported Sir Leon Brittan's package, but it had to be supported unanimously, and it was not. It is not right to say that 14 countries were in favour and only one against, but it had to be supported unanimously; that is simply how it is.
We were able to agree significant measures on the transatlantic economic partnership that will have an impact on trade. The measures that we were able to agree on United States sanctions will have an important bearing on the ability of British and European companies to trade with countries against which the USA imposes sanctions. It was a successful meeting. Of course, we would have liked to go further, but consent for that simply was not there.
On growth and job creation, I simply point out that unemployment is significantly down since the Government came to office. People cannot have it both ways on this. [Interruption.] Neither of us can, on national health service waiting lists and class sizes, for example. The plain fact is that we inherited from the previous Government a position in which one in five non-pensioner families had no one of working age in work. We have significantly changed the way in which unemployment statistics are calculated, because they were not right. Most people believe that the new deal, which we have implemented in the teeth of opposition from the Conservatives, is doing a great deal to reduce unemployment and help with the problems of social exclusion.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It has only just started.

The Prime Minister: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party opposed those measures.
On Kosovo, we agree that President Milosevic must take the necessary action outlined by the contact group, and that confidence-building measures are helpful.
I am happy to pay tribute to what the previous Conservative Chancellor did about debt reduction. However, it is not correct to say that the G8 came up with nothing new. The proposal for interim relief for heavily indebted countries was new, and the proposal for interim relief for countries that get into the process by 2000 was also new. The measures agreed on post-conflict countries were also new. In addition, the measures agreed for the World Health Organisation were new. I have said already that we would have preferred to go further. Nevertheless, considerable progress was made, and was made in circumstances in which people believed we would make no progress.
Our view on Indonesia is clear. There must be political and economic reform. It is not for us to interfere in the internal politics of Indonesia, but we should reiterate our commitment to the economic reform and political transparency that would help that part of the world.
The G8 did, indeed, put out a united position on India. Countries have their own positions on sanctions, and I do not know whether the right hon. Member is arguing that we should have imposed economic sanctions on India. I do not think that that is the position.
The conference was a significant success. The reason for that was that we delivered a focused agenda with a series of concrete steps. In respect of the previous European conference, after yesterday's speech, the summit would have been rather less well organised and delivered if the right hon. Gentleman had been in charge.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Given the number of summits that the Prime Minister has attended recently, I am tempted to ask him which he would look forward to least—another summit or another round of golf.
There is much in the G8 summit that we welcome, including the proposals on sustainable growth, jobs and transnational crime, but does the Prime Minister agree that one failure that cannot be glossed over is the failure on debt restructuring? Is it not the case that the summit did not even fulfil all five conditions in the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting in Mauritius? Is it not the case that the Prime Minister himself hoped and argued for more? Will he confirm that he shares at least some of the disappointment at the outcome of the 40,000 who gathered outside in what he rightly described as a dignified and powerful demonstration? May we conclude from that that the Prime Minister and the Government will wish to go further?
It is a good thing that the G8 is signing up to Kyoto, but does the Prime Minister realise that he will have to go further? He certainly should, because what has been done is not sufficient to fulfil his manifesto commitment to achieve a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2 by 2001.
On the question of the transatlantic economic partnership, will the Prime Minister confirm that the most-favoured nation principle will be followed, and that any bilateral agreement between Europe and the United States will subsequently be thrown open to multilateral access? Otherwise, such an agreement can act as a block to free trade and not as an encouragement.
Does the Prime Minister agree that one could not have a more eloquent statement of the current state of the Conservative party than the contrast between the welcome


to monetary union given by all the world's leaders at the G8 summit and the increasingly neurotic and isolationist speeches made by the leader of the Conservative party, which do good neither to his party nor to the country?

The Prime Minister: I share some of the disappointment of Jubilee 2000 on debt restructuring. I doubt whether we will ever go far enough to meet the full concerns of any group in that respect, but we would have wished to go further. Having said that, before the summit a great deal of concern was expressed that we would be unable to get an agreement at all. Some of the comment that has been made post the G8 summit has understated significantly the amount of progress that was made. The Finance Ministers are now tasked with coming back to us and saying specifically how they intend to take that further. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was here until a moment ago, will be handling that himself. The measures that he has proposed through the Mauritius mandate and elsewhere in the past few months have been immensely helpful.
We are on course to meet our Kyoto targets. We obviously have to be careful to ensure that we pursue the right policies on energy and energy conservation. That is the reason for the Budget measures and the programmes to promote conservation.
In respect of the transatlantic partnership, yes we want to see that there is multilateral access to the bilateral EU-US relationship. However, it is important to emphasise that, on any basis, that relationship is the most important trading relationship anywhere in the world. It should not be, and, as far as we have anything to do with it, it will not be, a conspiracy to shut out other people.
I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about monetary union, but, fortunately, that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Stuart Bell: The Prime Minister was perfectly right at Birmingham to seek to regain the informality of Group 8 summits that prevailed in the 1970s when it was Group 4. It will not have escaped his attention that 60 per cent. of the world's gross domestic product was represented at Birmingham. It was therefore right and fitting that time should be spent on the debt, aid and health of the third world. The Prime Minister has referred to the eligibility of nation states under the debt bracket and to the new interim measures. Can he confirm what was not in the statement—that the United Nations has a commitment to reduce third-world debt by half in the next 15 years? Building on the statement made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and given my right hon. Friend's own determination, will he confirm that that is a noble goal for his Government in the days, weeks, months and years ahead?

The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right; we did agree to meet those aid and development targets. That is obviously an important part of our own domestic policy, quite apart from our international policy. In respect of the G8 meeting, as I said, Germany has now indicated that it will follow the same course of informality next year. There was a feeling that it was far easier to get measures agreed. Incidentally, I would highlight the measures on international crime and the fact that there will be specific concrete steps taken by

all the G8 countries as a result. In the end, as much as anything else, that will prove to be one of the benefits of the G8 summit in Birmingham.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Can the Prime Minister help the House to understand exactly why it was not possible to make as much progress on third-world debt as he had hoped to make and as the Select Committee on International Development had hoped that he would make at Birmingham?
What were the arguments adduced around the table in Birmingham against being more generous and more comprehensive, speeding up the process and selling IMF gold to provide a fund against which to write off the debt? What sort of arguments do we have to use and what does the right hon. Gentleman think that we, he and his Government should be doing to persuade those who do not agree with us—Germany, Japan and the United States—to agree to the proposals put forward, very sensibly, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself? If he can help the House, perhaps we will make some progress.

The Prime Minister: It is not so much helping the House that I need to do, as making the case to other countries. Their concerns are obviously about money and about whether there is sufficient reform in the indebted countries to which debt relief has been granted. Our view is that the most persuasive case for more debt relief is that it is only when those countries can escape the burden of their debt that they are able to develop economically. That is not a zero-sum game in which they gain and we lose; on the contrary, it is a game in which we can both win.
Many of those countries are struggling with huge debt repayments every year, which squeeze out the spending that they require on infrastructure and other things. We made those points and we shall continue to make them.
I have said this before, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will forgive my repeating it: it does actually matter that we got more agreement than might otherwise have been expected. I know that it was not enough for us and for others, but it was more than most people were expecting before the G8 met.

Mr. Robin Corbett: May I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing the summit to the city of Birmingham, on behalf of the people of that city, its council and loads of companies that helped to ensure its success? May I thank him for his kind comments and invite him to commend the activities of West Midlands police, in ensuring in an unobtrusive way the security of all those taking part? Will he find a way of thanking my constituent Nyla Yousuf, who was the lead UK delegate to the parallel young people's summit taking place at the same time, for the magnificent way in which she chaired that event and the commendable communiqué on which all the delegates agreed?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to do that on both points—to repeat my thanks to the people of Birmingham for their tremendous welcome and to the council for the way in which it organised the summit. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the West Midlands police were superb in organising the summit. My summit experience, which has recently been very extensive, is that their work


was done in the most unobtrusive way—very calm and very well policed—which made a great difference to the overall feel of the conference.
Nyla Yousuf, whom I met when I went along to the young people's G8 summit, conducted it with extraordinary skill. If she carries on doing that for some years, I can well see her being in a position to make statements like this in future.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I congratulate the Prime Minister on strengthening the undoubted ties that already exist between him and President Clinton. I cannot blame him for strengthening those ties, given the comments that Viktor Klima, Chancellor of Austria and the next President of the European Union, made when he said that the Prime Minister gave a summit which demonstrated how not to conduct summits—which was not very helpful to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister said that a veto by one country has prevented the European Union and the north Atlantic countries from enjoying free trade. Does that mean that the World Trade Organisation plan and aim for world free trade by 2020 is dead in the water?

The Prime Minister: No. Indeed, it is fair to say that more than one country objected to what Sir Leon Brittan was proposing. I did not accept those objections, but they were based on those countries' desire to do things through the WTO. However, we believed that it would have been perfectly consistent with that to have had the transatlantic trade deal as well. I do, however, stress, as I did a moment ago, that we made considerable progress with the transatlantic economic partnership—it was not as much as we wanted, but it was significant progress—and, especially because of the additional measures in relation to sanctions and extra-territoriality, we made more progress on those things at the EU-US summit than we have made for very many years.
In respect of strengthening ties with the United States, I think it is always in this country's interests to have strong relations with the US.

Mr. John Cryer: Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's support for free trade, will he nevertheless accept that there are some things that we cannot allow to move freely around the world, such as white asbestos, which is an especially deadly substance? Will he look toward some type of control, perhaps extending to a ban, on the importing of white asbestos?

The Prime Minister: That is under consideration both in this country and in the European Union, although we have given an—I believe, justified—undertaking to Canada and other countries that produce white asbestos that we shall proceed on the basis of the scientific evidence. That scientific evidence exists; we are analysing it, and we shall make our views known when that analysis is complete.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I thoroughly endorse the Prime Minister's words in his statement that
economic reform can be soundly based only where political legitimacy exists. That requires political accountability and transparency, too"?

Can he not see that those are precisely the criteria that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition seeks to apply to the future management of the single currency in Europe, because it will lack political legitimacy, transparency and accountability, and is therefore likely to be unstable?

The Prime Minister: I do not want to intrude on the private debate between various members of the Conservative party, but I must say that it is bizarre to claim that monetary union lacks the support of the countries joining it; it has the support of their democratically elected Governments. As far as this country is concerned, we have made it clear that it will be subject to a referendum.
It would be very, very foolish of Conservative Members to get themselves into the position of hoping that monetary union fails, because it will not be in anyone's interests if it fails. The history of the past few years is that Conservative Members have said, "It will never happen. If it happens, only a few countries will take part. If there are more countries, it will all fall apart very quickly." They have been wrong at every juncture.
The accountability lies in the procedures that have been set out in the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Jenkin: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I remind him that it was negotiated by the Prime Minister of the Conservative Government, under whom he served as a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Prime Minister accept that the origins of the debt burden of the poorest countries are sky-rocketing interest rates and consistently falling prices for basic commodities and basic agricultural products? Does he further accept that this issue must be revisited urgently, to ensure, first, a massive write-off of the totally unjust and immoral debts that the poorest African countries are burdened with, and, secondly, a system of price adjustments to ensure that the poorest countries receive fair prices for the products that they produce, and that huge profits do not continue to be made in the west on the basis of cheap products from overseas?

The Prime Minister: I think that what would help the poorest countries most would be to start opening out some of the world trading system, especially in relation to agriculture. As I said at the GATT anniversary conference in Geneva yesterday, that would do a tremendous amount of good for many of those countries.
In respect of debt relief for those countries, I shall not repeat myself, but yes, we do want more debt relief to go to the heavily indebted countries. We want them all in that initiative by the year 2000. There are now provisions for interim relief. I gather that six of those countries already qualify for some £5.6 billion of relief. The creditors of the Paris club have already forgiven $8 billion. It is important that we carry on with that process. It is not moving as fast as we should like, but some progress is being made. Some of the comments that I have read in the past few days, effectively suggesting that the debt relief package has been rolled backwards as


a result of the G8, are wrong. It has not been pushed forward as much as it should be, but it has been moved forward.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Is the Prime Minister aware that every day 16,000 people are infected with the AIDS virus and, of the $18 billion a year that is spent on research into and treatment and prevention of that disease, only 1 per cent. is spent on developing an AIDS vaccine? Does he accept that the G8 summit went a very small way indeed in encouraging research into the AIDS vaccine, and will he give his support to all the people who say that the development of such a vaccine is the only way in which we shall conquer the world epidemic?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with the hon. Lady. As she knows, we included in the communiqué a specific passage pledging ourselves to
continue our efforts to reduce the global scourge of AIDS through vaccine development, preventive programmes and appropriate therapy, and by our continued support for UNAIDS.
We also specifically welcomed the French proposal for the so-called therapeutic solidarity initiative, and other proposals for the prevention and treatment of AIDS. In addition, we have requested that our experts come back with a study on the feasibility of their implementation, plus the additional measures that we need to take to ensure that a greater amount of the research is specifically directed at the developing world. Again, that is at least something.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I return my right hon. Friend to the question asked by the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), on the reasons why Japan and Germany specifically were identified with those who seemed to be resisting a new debt initiative. My right hon. Friend referred to their demands for reform. To what specific areas of reform are they alluding? What do they want that they cannot have at the moment?

The Prime Minister: We are all agreed in the sense that any money, whether by way of aid or debt relief—any assistance going to the developing countries, particularly the heavily indebted ones—should go under a regime which ensures that the money goes for the purposes for which it is required, and that economic reform programmes are in place that allow the best use to be made of the assistance that has been given. Some countries feel more strongly than others that not sufficient is being done in that direction, and some countries feel that there is a financial problem with the amount of aid and debt relief that can be given. But it is wrong to single out particular countries in a particular way.
It is true to say that international discussion on this issue, particularly after the Mauritius mandate, which was agreed by our Chancellor and pushed through by him, has particularly advanced the process. It is just not advancing as quickly as we should like. We shall have a chance to return to that in other international forums, and we will return to it. We have tried during this past period to push on significantly the measures proposed to aid those

developing countries, and we are doing that not merely out of compassion for the developing world, but because, in the end, it is solidly in our interests to do so.

Mr. David Willetts: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his boldness in going beyond his Secretary of State in appearing to say in response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he expects the new deal to reduce the number of workless households. Will he now say what sort of effect he expects?

The Prime Minister: It has been set out many times. As a result of the new deal, thousands of young people are coming off benefit and going into work. One of the worst legacies of the previous Government was the large number of long-term unemployed young people who had never worked in their lives. It requires a special programme to get them off benefit and into some form of work. We are pushing it through as much as we can. Already many thousands of youngsters are off benefit and in work, which I think is a good thing. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman opposes it.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable for any country to have to spend more on the repayment of debt than on its health and education programmes? That puts into perspective the girns that we regularly hear from the Opposition on those topics in relation to our own country. When other nations at the G8 summit speak of reform in those countries, to what extent do they recognise that when people are living in such a deep state of poverty, reform is unlikely? As Bertolt Brecht famously said, a man is only human—he must eat before he can think.

The Prime Minister: That is why we want to take the process further. It is correct to say that we must make sure that the money that we put in—for example, into post-conflict countries—is going into countries that are prepared to reform. For example, in Geneva yesterday I met a Minister from the Rwandan Government, who specifically thanked us for the work that we have been doing. Work is being done, but we need to go further and do more.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome the Prime Minister's positive and rational support for the Jubilee 2000 campaign. There is no doubt that on-going action is necessary, and I am sure that he will get support from all parts of the House for what we seek to achieve.
Did the Prime Minister see the television news coverage of the desperate famine in south Sudan, the passive acceptance of their plight by the people of that country, and the apparent inability of the world to provide them with food help, even when there are huge surpluses in Europe alone? Will the Prime Minister use his office as President of the EU to co-ordinate a campaign to get food to the people of south Sudan as soon as possible, to prevent thousands of unnecessary deaths?

The Prime Minister: I agree totally with those sentiments, and I saw those pictures. We have already


used our position as the presidency of the EU to step up significantly the amount of aid that we are giving, and, on our own account, we have pledged several million pounds more in the past few weeks.
Again, however, it is also important to achieve the necessary political change. Some of the humanitarian aid is not getting through as it should, not because the will is lacking to get the aid through, but because the aid is being prevented from getting through. It is important that we make the necessary provision to aid famine in those countries, and, at the same time, make it clear that we require a process of political reform so that the money and the aid that we are getting in go to the people who really need it. However, we will carry on looking to see what more we can do to relieve the terrible suffering of the people there.

Ms Tess Kingham: Our Government, under their ethical foreign policy, have taken the view that it is best to engage directly with countries such as Indonesia and China. That view is obviously not taken by the United States in relation to Cuba, which it has cast into the outer wilderness. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether we have made that case to the US Government? Have we asked them to take a leaf out of our book and to engage directly with the Government of Cuba, to have a productive dialogue and to bring Cuba into the world community rather than casting it aside?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, American foreign policy is a matter for the United States. We have always made it clear that we disagree with the extra-territoriality provisions in the Helms-Burton Act and other legislation. The European Union shares that position. I hope that, over time, there will be greater acceptance of Cuba into the world, and also greater acceptance by Cuba of proper democratic political reform. The two things must ultimately go together.

Mr. Robert Key: In the detail of the European Union-United States communiqué there is an important and welcome reference to increased co-operation to counter chemical and biological terrorism. If we are to avoid the absurd over-reaction that we witnessed earlier in the year when the Home Secretary sensibly issued a routine warning to ports, does the Prime Minister agree that we need an improved public education programme that will tell people exactly what is going on? Is that envisaged as part of the welcome move that has been described?

The Prime Minister: I cannot answer that point in detail, so I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and tell him what specific steps we are taking. He is right to say that our general purpose is to ensure that people receive as much information as possible in a way that does not alarm them or generate scare stories that are no good for anyone.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Seven Labour Back Benchers are still standing. I hope that they will put their points briefly to the Prime Minister, who has been at the Dispatch Box for a very long time.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: When my right hon. Friend strides across the world stage, will he remember

that, on the question of debt relief, it is important not to repeat the experiences of the past 18 years when the Tory Government wrote off the debts of the top four clearing banks—NatWest, Midland, Barclays and Lloyds—to the tune of £5 billion? This time, let us make sure that we use that £5 billion—if we can find the money by getting rid of the Tory spending plans—to write off the debts of under-developed countries.

The Prime Minister: I agree with those sentiments entirely.

Mr. Michael Clapham: Very speedily, may I say that I listened to what the Prime Minister said about the progress that has been made in helping the heavily indebted countries? Does he agree that, if we are to achieve the target of halving the world's poverty by 2015, the G8 must adopt a much more realistic approach? Will he work continually to inject that realism?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we shall continue to try to make progress on two fronts. Greater debt relief, forgiveness of debt and aid to the developing world will be matched by the institutions through which that aid is channelled putting in place the necessary economic reforms. Countries can take advantage of their often enormous natural resources only if they are freed from some of their burden of debt and pursue the right economic policies. They could be wealthy trading partners with the rest of the world if they were given the chance. The combination of debt relief and political reform offers the best way forward.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend think that the G8 has done everything possible to make the Government of Pakistan understand that, however justified they may feel in responding with a nuclear test and although there may be public pressure within the country to conduct such a test, it is in the best interests of Pakistan not to respond in that way? Should not the G8 send a clear message that India and Pakistan must sit around a table and resolve the problem of Kashmir? That would unlock the logjam and enable them to look at the real problems facing those two countries and that part of the world.

The Prime Minister: Of course, we want to see progress in respect of that dispute, but those countries must work it out for themselves. In respect of the possibility of Pakistan conducting nuclear tests, I hope, even at this stage, that it will refrain from doing so. If it did, it would receive enormous support and congratulations from around the world. We remember the example set by Brazil and Argentina, and I hope that Pakistan will take a leaf out of their book.
As the President of the United States said on Monday, India is an immensely important and powerful country. Its potential is virtually unlimited. I say to the Indian Government and the Indian people—they are friends of this country and we feel the great bond and tie of history between our two countries—that there are other and better ways of enhancing their international standing and security than nuclear testing.

Mr. Harry Barnes: As a follow-up to the previous question, may I ask the


Prime Minister to elaborate further on the G8 attitude to Pakistan? What is the G8 doing to encourage Pakistan not to explode any nuclear bombs? There is a sense in which Pakistan's response is almost more important than what has taken place in India. It is often the person who is seen to retaliate who gets the red card. It would be unfortunate if Pakistan moved into that position.

The Prime Minister: I agree that our position cannot be different in respect of the two countries. We are looking, both on our own account and as President of the European Union—I know that the United States is doing the same—to find all the arguments that we can to persuade Pakistan that it does not need to follow suit with India, and that it would be better for it and world security if it did not.

Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the G8 should have called for political reform in Indonesia a long time ago, when Suharto was strong, rather than now, when he is weak and no longer of any use to his friends? May I ask my right hon. Friend, as leader of the European Union, whether he could not beef up the statement a bit and call for Suharto to stand down now to avoid further bloodshed and suffering in Indonesia?

The Prime Minister: We do not believe that it is for us to tell particular leaders to stand down, but we have made a strong statement in respect of political reform in Indonesia. There is no doubt that the future of Indonesia—after all, it is one of the largest countries in the world with a population of 200 million and with tremendous potential—is best secured through both economic and political reform. If that were to happen and Indonesia ended up with a more transparent financial system and a more accountable political system, its future would be extremely bright. Obviously, that is what we should be working for.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on ensuring that the communiqué made specific reference to the need for OECD countries to ratify the convention on transnational bribery? May I ask my right hon. Friend to read the United Kingdom tax inspectors' manual, which makes it clear that the fiscal regime that we inherited from the Conservatives does not make international bribery an offence in UK law, and, in many cases, makes it tax deductible? Will my right hon. Friend consider that and make the necessary changes to the law as part of our ratification process of the OECD convention?

The Prime Minister: I have to say that the Inland Revenue tax inspectors' manual has not yet found its way on to my bedtime reading list. I shall obviously try to

rectify that. I do not know the answer to my hon. Friend's point offhand, but I shall certainly look into the matter and tell him.

Mr. Andrew Miller: The whole House will welcome the section of the communiqué on drugs trafficking. Is it likely that, as a result of that, we may see sanctions imposed on those regimes that engage directly in drugs trafficking, especially countries such as Burma that are killing our kids and systematically killing their own children and families?

The Prime Minister: We are looking at every way in which we can discourage countries from the production of drugs, especially if that has anything to do with Government encouragement. The most important thing that the G8 did was to agree a series of actions in respect of high-tech crime, international crime and money laundering in particular. It is the money laundering for the drugs trade that is its real point of vulnerability and weakness if we can attack it properly.
Vast sums—billions of dollars—move across frontiers to support the drugs trade. We have asked our Finance Ministers to come back to us with specific measures that we can take to enhance our ability to strike at money laundering. I should like to see us move eventually to a system that is accepted worldwide where we can make progress on tackling this issue. If we are to tackle the drugs problem, we need to tackle demand, which we and other countries are trying to do. We need also to attack the supply.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: I welcome the initiative and the lead that this country has taken, particularly on debt reduction. Is my right hon. Friend able to give a commitment that this country will continue to support European and international programmes that permit the exchange of knowledge and skills between the UK, and countries and areas in the process of development or reconstruction, which would allow those countries to develop their own local and regional economies in a way that suits them, and also permit good governance to take place?
Will my right hon. Friend support that approach within the context of local Agenda 21 groups, where a variety of people in local areas work with international support to develop local economies and good governance together?

The Prime Minister: The $10 million that I announced in Geneva yesterday will be specifically for technical and other forms of assistance to allow developing countries to take advantage of a more liberal trading regime, and will be geared to ensuring that they have the best possible chance of developing precisely as my hon. Friend describes. That will certainly happen in respect of exchange programmes, which are already a big part of our education programme and which we intend to develop further.

Points of Order

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I take hon. Members back to Prime Minister's Question Time, when the Prime Minister appeared to tell the House that there was no rebuttal officer dealing with NHS waiting lists? I wish to point out for the record that the Secretary of State for Health gave two parliamentary answers dated 11 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). The one specifically entitled "Civil Service Rebuttal Officer" confirmed:
The Department's communications planning unit"—
which is costed at £86,000 a year—
includes a rebuttal officer".—[Official Report, 11 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 40.]
It goes on to describe the rebuttal officer's job. The Prime Minister may not have known that, but the record is clear.

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You and your predecessors regularly call, "Ayes to the right, Noes to the left". I therefore take it that "No" is a respectable vote in this House, whether people are right or wrong. It was regrettable today that there were those who were urging a "Yes" vote, and there was no opportunity for anyone to say no.

Madam Speaker: That is an abuse of a point of order. It is not for me to become involved in politics. The hon. Gentleman is usually a gracious Member of this House and does not normally behave in that fashion. I hope that he stands—or sits—reprimanded.

Ports of Entry (Special Status)(No. 2)

Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for special status for ports of entry to the United Kingdom so far as the law affecting local government and policing is concerned; and for related purposes.
My Bill provides measures to ensure that the needs of areas of the United Kingdom that house ports of entry, be they sea ports or airports, are properly recognised. They endure special pressures in terms of additional resources for policing, social services, education, health and housing provision. Almost all our ports of entry suffer such additional burdens to a greater or lesser extent, and I am grateful to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent ports of entry constituencies and who either formally sponsored my Bill or gave it their support. I am sure that they will forgive me if I draw mainly on examples from my constituency and the county of Kent to illustrate the case for change.
I am privileged to represent the constituency that houses the port of Dover, the busiest ferry port in the world, which is pleased to be known as the gateway to Europe. The county of Kent and the port of Dover provide the shortest, quickest and cheapest passenger links with other parts of the European Union, and those vital transport corridors are of strategic and national importance. Last year, nearly 2 million heavy goods vehicles passed through Kent, and some 20 million passengers were handled by the port of Dover alone.
Such high concentrations of activity generate huge additional demands on the resources of police authorities, local authorities and agencies with jurisdiction over ports of entry. It is accepted that, from time to time, the appropriate authority in any part of the United Kingdom may be required to deal with extraordinary, large-scale events, but for busy ports of entry such as Dover, events that would be considered extraordinary elsewhere have become ordinary. The majority of port-related events are large scale in terms of resource demand.
Additional pressures on police include supporting the work of Customs and Excise agencies to control bootlegging and drug smuggling, dealing with the high levels of crime associated with such activities, and policing demonstrations and marches. Many ports have been picketed by animal rights protesters who object to the way in which live animals are transported and exported for food. I support the protesters, and should like that awful trade to end, but such demonstrations must be policed and the cost is high.
In recent years, ports have become the focus of every protest group that wants to publicise its point. British ports have been blockaded by British farmers protesting against the importation of meat, and French ports have been blockaded by French fishermen, dockers, farmers and truck drivers protesting about their various and numerous causes. Whichever side of the channel stoppages take place, the consequences are the same: massive, unpredictable backlogs of traffic and the need to manage that traffic. Kent police have devised plans for dealing with those recurring problems as they affect Dover, but such operations are costly.
Ports of entry have to provide support for illegal immigrants, asylum seekers and their families, which creates additional demands on local authorities. Sadly,


in my constituency the presence of large groups of immigrants has given rise to social tensions in the community. Fascist groups from outside the area have sought to exploit those tensions by staging racist marches, and anti-fascist groups have confronted them. Policing such events is costly, and diverts a large number of police officers from regular duties.
Dealing with immigrants has also imposed additional pressures on ports of entry and on neighbouring areas, but the implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 has increased them considerably by shifting responsibility for supporting asylum seekers on to local authorities. As well as meeting the requirements of the Children Act 1989 and the National Assistance Act 1948, and meeting other costs of social care, local authorities have to meet the costs of educational facilities for children and adults in such groups.
The influx of immigrants from eastern European countries into Dover and surrounding constituencies has put enormous pressures on Kent county council. Although specific grants are in place, they fall far short of covering expenditure. That is due partly to the high thresholds that have to be exceeded to warrant payment, and partly to the limits that have been set. Last year, those limits caused Kent to suffer a shortfall of more than £1 million for its support of asylum seekers and their children. That shortfall should be covered under the council's existing budget. Grants by no means cover the cost of caring for asylum seekers, so other services in Kent suffer.
Similarly, district councils in ports of entry are responsible for housing asylum seekers and for providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Changes made to immigration legislation in 1996 substantially increased their costs. In the last full year before the 1996 Act took

effect, Dover district council's expenditure on asylum seekers for bed-and-breakfast accommodation was £1,169. The estimated cost for the current year is £47,000.
Special grants are available to certain categories of local authority to compensate for those additional costs, but, for some reason, district councils such as Dover do not qualify for such reimbursement. Local authorities with jurisdiction over ports of entry are responsible for administering and enforcing port health regulations, the cost of which is increasing. For Dover district council, that amounts to more than £60,000 a year.
There is no recognition of those disproportionately high costs in the rate support grant, and the current method of business rate collection from port authorities does not directly benefit local councils. Many other extraordinary costs fall disproportionately on police authorities and local authorities housing ports of entry.
My Bill seeks to remedy those difficulties by providing special status to authorities that house ports of entry, which will recognise their additional expenditure and provide them with appropriate support. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gwyn Prosser, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Ivan Henderson, Laura Moffatt, Mr. Derek Wyatt, Ms Jackie Lawrence, Dr. Stephen Ladyman, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Robert Syms, Mrs. Louise Ellman, Dr. Alan Whitehead and Mr. Norman Baker.

PORTS OF ENTRY (SPECIAL STATUS) (No. 2)

Mr. Gwyn Prosser accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for special status for ports of entry to the United Kingdom so far as the law affecting local government and policing is concerned; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 192].

Orders of the Day — Human Rights Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

THE CONVENTION AND THE FIRST PROTOCOL

Sir Nicholas Lye11: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out '12 and'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 99, in schedule 1, page 18, line 23, at end insert—'Article 13—

EFFECTIVE REMEDIES

Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.'.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The amendments are exploratory. They would insert into the Bill article 13 of the convention. The reason why we wish to explore the omission of that article from the Bill and the difference that might be made if it were inserted relates to our primary aims for this legislation, which I hope the Home Secretary will say the Government share. However, even if they do share them, we doubt whether they have achieved them yet.
We have already expressed our doubts about the wisdom of incorporation of the convention, but, if there is to be incorporation, I hope that these three points are uncontroversial. First, one of the benefits of incorporation is that British judges would have an opportunity to have input into the fashioning of convention law. Some time ago, I wrote that I believed that, whatever my other reservations, that was an advantage of incorporation.
Secondly, the fashioning of convention law and its expression in our domestic law should be the combined efforts of the judiciary and Parliament. It is for the judiciary to state where and how our existing laws, procedures or remedies are inadequate in law or incompatible with the convention, but it is then for Parliament to decide, in cases where legislation is involved—either primary or secondary—how the matter should be properly corrected. That is why we broadly support the Government's approach to judicial remedies and the power to take remedial action that is contained in clauses 8 and 10.
Thirdly, we do not want the judiciary creating a separate body of law for the United Kingdom which may go further than would the commission or court at Strasbourg. Although we sometimes grumble at the Strasbourg institutions, and there are judgments that we respectfully criticise and seek to alter, we should recognise that they are usually careful and cautious in their approach to interpreting the convention. In recent

years in particular, they have given a great deal of weight to margin of appreciation, which they and our own judiciary should be careful to do, and we respect the way in which they do so.
To help achieve those three objectives, we shall concentrate later in the debate on, for example, our dislike of the fast-track procedure and on the fact that the Bill lacks any device—I use that word carefully—that would enable the Government or a public authority, if aggrieved by a ruling of our domestic courts, to cause the issue to be taken on to Strasbourg. Such a device would effectively give a right of appeal not only to the citizen, who already has such a right, but to government and public authorities, which currently lack that right. We hope to hear in due course that the Government agree with us on those aims and that approach, and that they will allow us to assist them in amending the Bill in that way.
To revert more narrowly to the amendments, I ask the Government to clarify what they see as the difference, if any, between article 13 being expressly contained in the Bill and it being left out, as it now is. I invite Ministers to listen and watch carefully, because I suspect that we are about to start dancing on the head of a pin.
When the question was asked by Lord Lester in another place, on 18 November, the Lord Chancellor, commencing his dance—if I may put it that way—first replied:
the courts may have regard to Article 13.
Some 10 lines further on in the Official Report, in answer to my noble Friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, the Lord Chancellor said:
to incorporate expressly Article 13 may lead to the courts fashioning remedies about which we know nothing".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 1997; Vol. 583, c. 477.]

Mr. Edward Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend has been discussing the opinions of their lordships. Has he learnt anything from reading the Official Report of the other place that tells us the substance of the reasoning, if there is any reasoning, behind the Government's approach as set out by the Lord Chancellor?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. and learned Friend anticipates accurately the points that I am about to expand. The simple answer to his question is no, but let me seek, for the benefit of the Home Secretary and the Minister, to explain why, in the hope that at least here, in the light of a summer's day, we may have some elucidation from the Government.
As I said, when the question was raised in the Lords, the Lord Chancellor gave two seemingly inconsistent answers within about 15 lines of debate. He went on to rebuke, if that is not too harsh a word, Lord Ackner, a former Law Lord, for "nourishing suspicions"—a delightful expression—on the issue. However, he then purported to comfort my noble Friend Lord Kingsland, the shadow Lord Chancellor, by stating:
I believe that the English law is rich in remedies and I cannot conceive of a case in which English law under Clause 8(1) would be unable to provide an effective remedy."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 1997; Vol. 583, c. 479.]
The House will instantly recall that Lord Lester said that he won Pepper v. Hart, but I was on the other side. Pepper v. Hart was not exactly a case that one won or


lost, but one in which the House of Lords—which was straining at the leash to do so—decided that it would be illuminating to their Lordships, in their judicial capacity, and to the courts generally if they were able to examine the words of a Minister in cases of ambiguity in a Bill, to determine whether they could ascertain how to resolve that ambiguity.
It has always seemed to me ironic that their Lordships chose a case in which the junior Minister in a Labour Government—who was a highly respected Member, and subsequently a Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee—had, around midnight, been answering some 90 questions in two hours in the course of a debate on the Finance Bill, in which he had arrayed against him 14 future Cabinet Ministers and two future Chancellors. None the less, Pepper v. Hart was thought likely to be a case in which examination of the Minister's words would be helpful.
4.45 pm
The point about Pepper v. Hart is that in it, it was ruled that one may examine a Minister's comments. Lord Lester—always astute on such points—has decided for himself that, having heard the current Lord Chancellor expatiating on the meaning of clause 8(1), he could take it that judges, having read the debate in the other place, would arrive at the simple conclusion that it was Parliament's intention that the courts could have regard to Article 13 of the Convention.
For completeness, one notes—as the Lord Chancellor pointed out—that, under clause 8(4),
In determining—
(a) whether to award damages, or
the amount of an award",
the Bill already provides that
the court must take into account the principles applied by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the award of compensation under article 41 of the Convention.
The Home Secretary will have instantly realised that, as the Bill seems to say that courts can take those points into account in awarding damages, applying another legal principle—expressio unius est exclusio alterius—presumably they are not entitled to take them into account in other circumstances. However, the Lord Chancellor did not go into that particular detail. Nevertheless, as I said, it seems to suggest that, in other respects, one does not take article 13 into account.
The Home Secretary might again be able to enlighten us on whether there is any difference between the meaning of the words "taking into account" and "having regard". I think that, by now, I have made good my point that the head of the pin on which we are dancing is not all that large.
I conclude with two simple questions. Does it make any difference whether article 13 is expressly contained in the Bill? If so, what difference does it make, and why?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) on a very elegant, well-informed and entertaining speech. However, in the course of this short debate, I hope to show that—on the omission of

article 13—far from dancing on the head of a pin, Labour Members have been waltzing with ease around a very large dance floor.
Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman made some hay with some selected quotations from my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor in the other place, it is fair to tell him that, in the course of that debate, Lord Lester of Herne Hill withdrew his amendment, seeming to be satisfied—he did not press his amendment to a vote—by explanations offered by the Lord Chancellor.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Home Secretary is right to say that Lord Lester appeared to be satisfied, but that was precisely because of his interpretation of the Bill, which, as I have just explained, was that, notwithstanding that article 13 was omitted, by applying Pepper v. Hart, the courts could none the less have regard to it.

Mr. Straw: I hope to explain, fully consistently with what my learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said, why we thought that, on balance, it would be better to omit article 13 than to include it.
In response to the first three general points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, of course we support him. The case for incorporation, among others, is that British judges can be involved in the development of jurisprudence. I happen to think that that will be extremely helpful, both because they obviously have a better understanding of circumstances in this country than judges from other jurisdictions, and because we have a body of people in the higher judiciary with a degree of skill and professionalism that is in some ways unrivalled throughout the world. It is important that that skill should be utilised in the interpretation of a profoundly important convention and a profoundly important Bill.
Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman felt that it was right that we should incorporate the convention in a way that fashioned the law through the combined efforts of the judiciary and Parliament. In opposition, when we first looked into the matter, we certainly tried to achieve that.
On the third point, we did not want to incorporate the convention in a way that challenged the supremacy of Parliament and its sovereignty. I have noticed some correspondence and articles in the newspapers suggesting that we should have gone down that route, and that, if we did not, it would be a milk-and-water version of incorporation.
When reference is made to Bills of Rights not only in the United States but in jurisdictions such as Canada, what is forgotten is that those jurisdictions have written constitutions and that there is what amounts to a superior law, which is brought into effect by the procedures for change in the constitution itself. We do not have that facility, and I do not suggest that we should. As an alternative, we have the sovereignty of Parliament, and therefore it is of profound importance that the ultimate judge of what should or should not be a right and a responsibility in the United Kingdom must be this Parliament and no other body.
In the discussions that took place among ministerial colleagues, we thought about this matter long and hard. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not mind me saying so, I was pleased and to some extent amused that, despite his hesitancy about the overall principle of


incorporation, he is now proposing a purer form of it than some would say we have put in the Bill. We decided it was inappropriate to include article 13, for the following reasons.
First and foremost, it is the Bill that gives effect to article 13, so there was an issue of duplication. The Bill sets out clearly how the convention rights will be given further effect in our domestic law, and what remedies are to be available when a court or tribunal finds that a person has been the victim of an unlawful act. We will be discussing those clauses in more detail later, but I will briefly summarise the relevant provisions.
Clause 3 requires legislation to be read and given effect, as far as possible, in accordance with convention rights. Clause 6 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a convention right. Clause 7 enables the victim of an unlawful act to rely on his or her convention rights in any legal proceedings, or to bring proceedings on convention grounds. Clause 8 provides that a court or tribunal, when it finds that a public authority has acted unlawfully, may grant the victim such relief or remedy, or make such order, within its jurisdiction as it considers just and appropriate.
Those are powerful provisions, as is acknowledged. In our judgment, they afford ample protection for individuals' rights under the convention. In particular, clause 8(1) gives the courts considerable scope for doing justice when unlawful acts have been committed. Indeed, no one has been able to suggest any respect in which the Bill is deficient in providing effective remedies to those who have been victims of an unlawful act.
The amendment—this was to some extent implicit in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's closing remarks—would add nothing to the Bill, which brings me to our second reason for opposing it. If we were to include article 13 in the Bill in addition to the remedies provided in clauses 3, 6, 7 and 8, the question would inevitably arise what the courts would make of the amendment, which, on the face of it, contains nothing new. I suggest that the amendment would either cause confusion or prompt the courts to act in ways not intended by the Bill—for example, by creating remedies beyond those available in clause 8. Whatever the outcome, the result would be undesirable.

Mr. Garnier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give one or two examples of the remedies he envisages that would go beyond those set out in clause 8?

Mr. Straw: In considering article 13, the courts could decide to grant damages in more circumstances than we had envisaged. We had to consider that matter carefully, because of the effect on the public purse. We are dealing with breaches of rights by public bodies, some of which are financed by Government—whose purse is, apparently, endless and seamless—whereas others do not have access to the full resources of Her Majesty's Government and the Bank of England printing works in my home town of Loughton in Essex. We had to think carefully about the scope of the remedies that we should provide.
Our overall judgment is that the amendment, which would incorporate article 13, would not add anything much, but might create uncertainties. We see no particular reason to accept it.

Mr. Garnier: Does not that argument fly in the face of the terms of article 13, which concerns everyone's right under the convention to an effective remedy? The right hon. Gentleman's point about the public purse and defendants or respondents to complaints who do not have such a deep pocket suggests that some people will be denied an effective remedy. If article 13 is not incorporated, an effective remedy will be denied those who are not, for example, taking action against a Government or public body with a huge purse.

Mr. Straw: We do not believe that those people will be denied an effective remedy. Indeed, as I said, very few people have suggested that the remedies we are providing will be ineffective—however, they must be balanced and proportionate. Ultimately, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire rightly said, courts will have to take account of jurisprudence laid down by the court in Strasbourg.
I accept that we are arguing a fine point, but I suspect that, if the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire had been pursuing the Bill in government, as easily he could have been, he would have come to the same judgment as we did—that there is little point including in a Bill additional wording whose probable effect would be not to make any difference, but whose possible effect would be to add uncertainty.
That is our judgment on a fine point, and I accept that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire may consider it a moot point. No doubt I have spoken less eloquently than the Lord Chancellor and others in the Lords.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary, who is speaking most clearly. I entirely agree that, with regard to damages, the Bill is perfectly straightforward, and that clause 8(4) expressly states that principles applied by the European Court of Human Rights should be taken into account.
What is to be made of the Lord Chancellor's statement in which he said:
My response to the second part of the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is that the courts may have regard to Article 13."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 1997; Vol. 583, c. 477.]?
Lord Lester has taken that as Pepper v. Harting—if I may create a new verb—the result that he wants, allowing the courts to do what they could not otherwise do.
5 pm
The Home Secretary, not the Lord Chancellor, is in charge of the Bill. Will he clarify whether the courts are to be able to use the Lord Chancellor's words to have regard to article 13, or whether they should simply read the Bill, which makes no such reference? Of course, I mean no disrespect to the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Straw: Me neither. I shall certainly talk to the Lord Chancellor, but I think that he had in mind no more but no less than the fact that the courts would apply clause 2(1), which says:
A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen under this Act in connection with a Convention right must take into account"—
not "have regard to"—
any … judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights … whenever made or given, so far as, in the opinion of the court or tribunal, it is relevant to the proceedings in which that question has arisen.
Of course, there is convention jurisprudence on article 13, as on other articles. Lord Lester made that point in respect of the Chahal case, which turned on article 13, and said that it would be taken into account and that regard would be had to it. That point is as much in our favour—suggesting that the specific inclusion of article 13 is unnecessary—as it is in the favour of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I do not want to be tedious, but the Home Secretary will recognise that clause 2(1) concerns
any … judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion",
while my question concerns whether the courts should have regard to article 13. I think that he is saying that he does not agree that the courts should have regard to article 13, as Lord Lester would have wished.

Mr. Straw: Let me try again to answer the point. The convention has been international law for 50 years, and any tribunal will consider the bare text of any original convention by considering the way in which its application has developed—there is, indeed, a requirement to do so—so, in practice, the courts must take account of the large body of convention jurisprudence when considering remedies. Obviously, in doing so, they are bound to take judicial notice of article 13, without specifically being bound by it.
That is my judgment about the way in which the law will work. I wish future Judicial Committees of the House of Lords luck in working through these debates. One sometimes wonders about the wisdom of the Pepper v. Hart judgment in terms of the work that it has given the higher judiciary. It is a fine point, but since we saw that there was no purpose, and indeed that there were some dangers, in including article 13, we thought that it was best omitted.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Surely, if the Government had wished no consideration to be given to the jurisprudence that has developed on article 13, it would have been necessary to include a specific derogation from the provisions of clause 2(1). Without that derogation, it seems inevitable that how the courts have developed article 13 rights will be a matter that the court not only may consider, but ought to consider.

Mr. Straw: With respect, that is the point that I sought to make. The distance between us is small.

Mr. Garnier: If the Home Secretary agrees with the point just made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), why not

include article 13 so that there is no doubt? Then the House of Lords Judicial Committee would not have a Pepper v. Hart problem.

Mr. Straw: We think that it would create doubt. We believe that we are adequately covering the issue of remedies in clauses 3, 6, 7 and 8. We are specifically providing remedies that are understandable in English and Scots law. In determining whether a particular remedy is to be granted in respect of any action, the courts must interpret convention rights as laid down in clause 2.
If I may labour the point, we do not believe that incorporating article 13 adds anything positive to the Bill that is not already there; that covers the point about the courts having to take judicial notice of article 13 as a basic text without being bound by it. We believe that it could create unnecessary doubt, and that is why it is not sensible to accept the amendment, which I respectfully invite the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire to withdraw.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I see the logic in the arguments of both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). Let me refer first to my right hon. Friend's logic by saying that the convention is about rights, but has one article that says that courts should give effective remedies. Courts usually give whatever remedies they can. As far as I know, the county court cannot provide prerogative orders—at least, it did not used to be able to; perhaps it can now and I do not know it. There are certain cases in which injunctions can be granted under statute in the county court, but prerogative orders such as certiorari or mandamus are not normally issued by county courts.
Presumably, if an issue of convention rights appeared in a county court action, an English county court would not be able to grant certiorari or mandamus, although that would be an effective remedy under article 13. I understand why my right hon. Friend says that each court will grant the remedy that that court has the right to grant, but if there is a judicial review, it is unusual for the divisional court or, in civil cases, the High Court, to award damages. It can happen, but—I have not looked at the white book over the past 24 hours—it is very rare. Yet much of the work for lawyers that the incorporation of the convention will create—if it does—will be in judicial review. The High Court might declare in a judicial review case that an act contrary to the treaty was unlawful. That might not be an effective remedy. Damages might be more effective. Today, it is generally not possible to obtain damages. It may be that the declaration of unlawfulness is sufficient.
I am as baffled as—I do not say this in a derogatory sense—the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire was. I have read the House of Lords debates. I, too, am baffled as to why article 13 has been left out, if it does not make any difference.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary muttered something about the public purse and lots of money. He said that it might cost a lot. I understand that argument, but I cannot follow its logic because, according to the notes on clauses, people cannot receive more than £15,000 from the courts in Strasbourg, if anything at all. So damages are pretty restricted. I am not sure why my


right hon. Friend is worried on that front, unless damages over and above the normal remedies that would be given by a court, such as prerogative orders in the case of judicial review, could be sought as an effective remedy. In cases of trespass of land, one can obtain a judgment and penny damages. That might not be an effective remedy in some cases.
Does the provision mean that I cannot normally obtain more than a penny, but that if article 13 is incorporated, I can obtain at least up to £15,000, if that is thought to be an effective remedy? I am not sure whether the word "effective" means anything at all. I have not studied the jurisprudence of the convention or the cases. Perhaps it does.
We are told that we are not incorporating the convention into English law, but we are. If we are incorporating the convention into English law, I can well understand that if an action goes through the normal English, Welsh or Scottish courts, it is tidier to say that the court can grant only the remedy that that court can give in the generality of cases. It makes the position rather complicated perhaps, and fussy—I do not know—to enable, say, a county court to give a remedy in a case under the convention when the court cannot give the remedy normally.
Perhaps all this is a consequence of the Government's fiction. It is a fiction. We shall return to this subject later, but it is a fiction. The Government say that they are not affecting the sovereignty of Parliament; that they are not incorporating the convention; that they are not doing anything at all. It is a clever fiction. Lawyers understand fictions. We approve of fictions. We think that fictions are great things because lawyers have made a lot of money over the centuries from fictions. This is a fiction and a clever one.
I can see the logic of what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is saying within the terms of the fiction—that parliamentary sovereignty is not affected, we are not really incorporating it and that it will all be done under English law. If we look at the interpretation provisions, we have to interpret according to the statute unless it is clearly contrary to the terms of the convention. It is very well done, and we all understand that.
All that I am asking my right hon. Friend in this rambling, short intervention is what he means when he says that he is worried about the public purse. Is he worried that all those lawyers—all those fat cats who sit every day in the judicial review courts and make a lot of money—will obtain damages against local authorities, damages for misfeasance, damages against the Home Office and other Government Departments, over and above any mere declaration that might satisfy pride but does not help the pocket of the litigant?
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend intends to speak again. If he tells me that I am talking nonsense, I shall not be happy, but I shall accept it, so perhaps he could deal with the point that I have made.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I listened carefully and with great interest to the comments of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). Although I approach the matter from a slightly different angle, I agree with him. I find a lack of logic behind the decision to

exclude article 13 from the Bill. I listened carefully to what the Home Secretary had to say, and I understand the thrust of it. If it is the case, which it must be, that the courts will have to have regard to article 13, to exclude it from the text of the Bill but to infer that the courts will still have to have regard to it, must be a fertile field for argument and money for lawyers when human rights cases come to court.
I do not see how the article will cause exceptional problems if it is included in the Bill. It will be clear that where no domestic remedy may exist in damages, one will have to be created. That is something that the common law has been rather adept at doing for a long time.
5.15 pm
I am bound to say that when I was first contemplating how best to incorporate the European convention, it struck me that one way was simply to say that it was part of our common law, full stop, and leave it to the judiciary to formulate the remedies. That is what is being done—the Home Secretary may agree—with article 13. It is being left up in the air for the judiciary to make a formulation in so far as one may be required. It is in fact going to be part of our common law, but in a furtive way, as the right hon. Member for Llanelli said.
I find a lack of logic. It is perhaps an exercise in semantics, because the article will be included anyway when the time comes. However, when something is left out, we can rely on the fact that lawyers in court will latch on to it and formulate an argument that damages cannot be awarded. I can foresee a circumstance wherein the domestic remedy cannot be found in damages. Some court or other will say that it cannot award them. Then there will be the problem of going to appeal and possibly ending up in Strasbourg, when it is abundantly clear in the convention that an effective remedy of damages must be found. I question why article 13 is not included. I accept that at the end of the day it will be included by one means or another, but as we are trying to draft sensible legislation, I must raise a question mark.
I invite the Home Secretary not to give us an answer today but to go away and think about whether it would not be better to include the article in the Bill. Later we shall be discussing other areas in which we have tinkered around with the wording of the convention, some of which cause me far more disquiet, but I find it difficult to understand the logic behind excluding article 13.

Mr. Gartner: I wish briefly to pose a question or two to the Home Secretary. I could not agree more with what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) just said. I hope that the Home Secretary will allow us another opportunity to revisit this subject. We do not want to overdo the dancing on a pin, be it a stately saraband or a rock and roll, depending on which side of the argument one happens to be on.
The Home Secretary gave us two reasons for not incorporating article 13 in the Bill. First, he said that it would be duplication. Secondly, he said that it would create confusion and perhaps additional remedies that were not intended. I draw his attention to the terms of article 13:
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.


The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) asked about the jurisprudence on the word "effective" and we could sit here all night discussing what "effective" means, but I should like to bring the Home Secretary home—if I may use that expression—to clause 8(4), which deals with the way in which a court should determine whether to award damages. It states that, in doing so,
the court must take into account the principles applied by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the award of compensation under Article 41".
One can revolve around that for ever, but marry it up with the words "effective remedy" and envisage a case in which a citizen wishes to recover damages from a Government institution—in this country, the Crown.
I am sure that I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but as I understand the common law of England it is not possible to get exemplary damages against the Crown; one can get exemplary damages against a chief officer of police or in other circumstances, but one is not entitled to exemplary damages against the Crown. Article 13, whether or not it appears in the Bill, suggests that we should all be entitled to an effective remedy, but if that remedy involves an application for exemplary or punitive damages against the Crown to compensate, the complainant in such cases will be denied. It may be that I am completely wrong on that point, but I should be most grateful if the Home Secretary could either remove my confusion or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, allow us to return to the issue on another occasion.

Mr. Straw: x: Let me answer—I hope to their satisfaction, but perhaps not—the points that right hon. and hon. Members have raised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) asked what the problem is and raised the issue of uncertainty. It was that uncertainty that concerned us when we sat down and came to a finely balanced judgment as to whether article 13 should or should not be omitted.
I should say that I am recommending that the Committee should not accept the amendment. I shall reflect on the arguments that have been advanced, because the point is needle fine—everybody is agreed on the objective; the question is merely one of how to achieve that objective. We have come to one judgment, but I would not for a moment suggest that that is because we on the Treasury Bench are possessed of better judgment on such matters than other right hon. and hon. Members, who have far greater experience of the law than I have.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli asked whether damages would ever be available. In paragraph 2.6 of the White Paper, we said:
In some cases, the right course may be for the decision of the public authority in the particular case to be quashed. In other cases, the only appropriate remedy may be an award of damages.
The White Paper went on to make the point that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made, which is that in considering an award of damages on conventional grounds, the courts are to take account of the principles applied, not so much by the convention, but by the European Court of Human Rights. In that way, people will be able to receive compensation from a

domestic court equivalent to that which they would have received in Strasbourg. My right hon. Friend will know from the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill, on page iii, that the awards at Strasbourg
tend to range from £5,000 to £15,000 and are not made simply because the Court finds a violation of the Convention.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I understand that, but it was my right hon. Friend who, quite properly, muttered about the public purse. What has the public purse got to do with the incorporation of article 13 if all those damages can be issued anyway? My impression is that he was saying that the Government were worried that, if they put article 13 in the Bill, it would cost far more money. My question is, how?

Mr. Straw: We might have been overworrying, but we did worry about the matter. My right hon. Friend was a Treasury Minister, so he will know that there is always concern about the financial effects of Bills, and quite right too. It is far more difficult to predict the financial effect of this Bill than of almost any other Bill coming before the House, because we are charting new waters and do not know exactly how it will develop. Our concern was to ensure that the courts applied themselves to the jurisprudence of the convention and that they did not, for example, develop awards of damages that exceeded the convention. It was for that reason that we took the view that the best way of applying article 13 in the context of incorporating the convention was to spell out in specific clauses how those remedies should be made available. Therefore, we take from article 13 that
Everyone whose rights and freedoms — are violated shall have an effective remedy
and then set out in the Bill what those effective remedies should be and how they can be accessed.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is to some extent right to say that the argument is about semantics and that it is probable that, at the end of the day, we shall have been arguing about a distinction without a difference. On balance, we came to the view that it was better and created more certainty to omit the precise text of article 13 from the Bill, but to apply it in the ways set out, not only in the clauses that provide for remedies, but through the force of clause 2. As I said, it is a finely balanced judgment.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way, because it gives me the opportunity to put to him the key point that is in my mind when deciding whether to withdraw the amendment.
I seek clarity in legislation. The Home Secretary invites me to withdraw the amendment that would insert article 13 into the Bill and I am minded to withdraw it, but I do not think that Parliament or the country should be left with article 13 having been kept out of the Bill—quite expressly, because the Committee has discussed it and I have withdrawn the amendment—but, at some later date, it being said to be effectively within the Bill because of things that Ministers said in the course of the debate. If the right hon. Gentleman can give me the assurance that we are legislating by black-letter law on the face on the Bill and not by what one can cull from the pages of Hansard, I shall feel much happier about withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. Straw: As far as I am concerned, we are indeed legislating by black-letter law on the face of the Bill.


We could have a separate debate about the wisdom of the decision in Pepper v. Hart: I know why the Judicial Committee made that decision and, to some extent, there is common sense in seeking to tease out the meaning of words where they are ambiguous, but I have always taken the view that what Parliament passes is not what Ministers say, but what is on the face of a Bill. That is of profound importance to the manner in which we make legislation.
I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, but I shall certainly reflect on what he and others have said. At the very least, I shall write to all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken, following my reflections.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary. On the basis of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 1, line 9, at end insert
'and—
(c) Articles One and Two of Protocol Number 6,'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 112, in schedule 1, schedule 1, page 19, line 23, at end insert—'PROTOCOL No. 6—

ARTICLE 1

THE DEATH PENALTY SHALL BE ABOLISHED

ARTICLE 2

A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions. The State shall communicate to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe the relevant provisions of that law.'.

Mr. McNamara: The amendment would insert in the Bill the sixth protocol of the European convention on human rights and, in particular, its first two articles. Article 1 of the sixth protocol states:
The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.
Article 2 of the sixth protocol states:
A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions. The State shall communicate to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe the relevant provisions of that law.
The Committee knows that, as a House, we abolished the death penalty for a trial period in 1965. That was made permanent in 1969 for this island and in 1973 for Northern Ireland.
There remained on the statute book two crimes which carried the death penalty: treason and piracy. However, as a result of an amendment, tabled in another place by Lord Archer of Sandwell, to clause 33 of the Crime and Disorder Bill, those crimes were removed from the statute book. That clause has passed through the Committee of the House of Commons and, although challenged,

remains. By free vote of the House, we have taken a matter which everyone has regarded as a matter of conscience—the death penalty—out of our normal civil law.
5.30 pm
There are two international conventions dealing with capital punishment. The first of those is the one to which I have referred—the sixth protocol of the convention on human rights of the Council of Europe. The other is the second optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political rights, which also provides for abolition of the death penalty, while allowing states wishing to do so to retain the death penalty in wartime—although I have been told, in reply to a parliamentary question, that the Ministry of Defence is now considering the whole matter of military penalties.
The sixth protocol has been ratified by 28 European states and signed by four others. It has been signed by all the members of the European Union except the United Kingdom, and has been ratified by 12 member states. The second optional protocol of the ICCPR has been ratified by 32 states and signed by four others.
I find the present position of Her Majesty's Government difficult to understand. I should have thought that, now that those matters have been removed from the statute book, Her Majesty's Government would have rushed to sign the sixth protocol—or at least, as it is a matter of conscience, encouraged hon. Members to act in that regard.
When Estonia, the most recent country in the Council of Europe to ratify the sixth protocol, did so in March 1998, the United Kingdom presidency issued a declaration welcoming the recent decision. It said:
The EU welcomes the recent decision of the Estonian Parliament to ratify protocol number six of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, thereby abolishing the death penalty. This is a significant step forward on the eve of the opening of Estonia's accession negotiations to join the EU. It reinforces Estonians' commitment to the promotion of human rights".
Last month, the United Kingdom co-sponsored, with 63 other states, the resolution at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. It called on all states parties to the ICCPR that have not already done so to consider acceding to, or ratifying, the second optional protocol, and called on all states that still maintained the death penalty to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to completely abolishing the death penalty. That was an advance, because in 1997 the UK Government had abstained on a similar resolution.
The problem is, how can the Government welcome other countries ratifying the sixth protocol but not ratify it themselves, and how can the Government urge other countries to ratify the second optional protocol to the ICCPR but not ratify it themselves?
Following last year's general election, our new Government reviewed the United Kingdom's position on the death penalty, in preparation for the summit of the Council of Europe at Strasbourg in October 1997. As a result of that review, the Government supported the final declaration, which called for universal abolition of the death penalty. In a written answer to me on 19 January, the Prime Minister said:
The Government have supported international calls for the abolition of the death penalty because Parliament has consistently voted against re-introduction of capital punishment for murder."—[Official Report, 19 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 401.]


In a letter to David Bull, director of Amnesty International UK, dated 28 November, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said:
Our new stance will make a real difference in allowing us to make demarches on the death penalty to other countries, either alone or with our EU partners".
However, he went on:
The Government continues to believe that the issue of whether the death penalty should be reintroduced for murder is a matter for Parliament on a free vote and has no plans to change that approach. We have no plans, therefore, to accede to the 6th Protocol to the ECHR, or the 2nd Optional Protocol to the ICCPR.
On that basis, given this opportunity, we would expect to have a free vote. Perhaps when the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), replies to the debate—or now—he will tell the Committee that the Government do not intend to put in any Whips against this amendment.

Mr. Grieve: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I have been trying to follow his argument. At the outset he said, properly, that the issue of capital punishment is one for conscience and a free vote, and at any time it chooses the House can debate that issue as it relates to individual instances—whether it be treason or piracy or whether the death penalty should apply in wartime—but would not the effect of what he proposes be to fetter the ability of Parliament to express its conscience?
If we accept the protocol as the hon. Gentleman seeks to admit it, it would no longer be open to Parliament to debate that issue without, effectively, throwing out the whole European convention, lock, stock and barrel, or at least changing it. Acceptance of the protocol would introduce an extra hurdle, which fetters Parliament's ability to express its conscience on a matter which, I am sure that he will agree, is of widespread public importance, and often discussed.

Mr. McNamara: I shall come to that point later.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I have asked the Whips, and I understand that this is a free vote.

Mr. McNamara: Has my hon. Friend been told that there will be no Government Whips on the Doors or taking the count?

Mr. Mullin: I have been told that this is a free vote.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful for that. The impression that one always had about a free vote was that the Government did not put in Whips. Perhaps the Minister will rise and tell us that the Government will not put in Whips.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): In due course.

Mr. McNamara: In due course he will rise and tell me that they are not putting in Whips. I am afraid that I did not catch my hon. Friend's last comment from a sedentary position; would he care to repeat it? No; he would not like to do so.
Responding to a similar amendment moved by Lord Archer of Sandwell in another place, the Minister, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said:
The Government's view has been that the issue of the death penalty … is a matter of judgment and conscience to be decided by Members of Parliament as they see fit. I believe that all political parties have taken a view on that particular aspect which is different from other human civil rights. Therefore, if we ratified Protocol 6, we could not reintroduce the death penalty for murder, short of renouncing the convention."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 1997; Vol. 583, c. 504–05.]
That is splendid. I suppose that every conscience will flick over just like that, to change its position.
That is particularly interesting on the basis of the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about the constitutional principle. Paragraph 4.13 of the excellent White Paper, "Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill", states:
The view taken so far is that the issue is not one of basic constitutional principle but is a matter of judgement and conscience to be decided by Members of Parliament as they see fit.
Suddenly, out of the air, a strange constitutional principle that one Parliament cannot bind another is produced. That is what we all accept, except that we also say that we are not bound by what went before and can change it if we will.
The hon. Gentleman said that that goes in favour of future Parliaments, but that is not the case. A future Parliament can, if it wishes, change precisely what we are seeking to do today, and that will have ramifications. It can be debated in the House. That can be applied to any international agreement that we have made. It applies directly to the EU and other matters that we have conceded. We could vote tomorrow—I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) would want us to do so—to take back many of the powers that we have given the Commission, such as the powers that we have surrendered with regard to majority voting. We could pass that legislation tomorrow. We can, if we wish, bring back the European Communities Act 1972. It would have profound and difficult ramifications and the hon. Gentleman is entering deep waters, but his argument does not stand up.

Mr. Grieve: Surely that is precisely the point. As is generally well known, I favour incorporation of the convention. However, the hon. Gentleman may agree that he is making life complicated for himself quite unnecessarily. He may agree that the subject commands much emotion and diverse views, but he is seeking by the amendment to entrench the matter in a way that will fetter Parliament when there is no necessity to do so.

Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, we are not fettering Parliament. We are saying that this is a decision of this Parliament. We are not saying that a future Parliament cannot change it. It will do that in the knowledge of the necessary consequences of what it does.

Mr. John Bercow: I have been following closely the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, bizarre though it seems to me. If the hon. Gentleman is confident that a future Parliament would not seek to reinstate the death penalty, of what precisely in the present arrangement is he afraid? If, on the other hand, he fears that a future Parliament might seek to re-establish


the death penalty, is not his effort today designed to prevent a future House of Commons from doing just that? Therefore, is not my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) right when he says that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to fetter and circumscribe the sovereign omnicompetence of the House of Commons?

Mr. McNamara: In the House, sovereignty has long since slipped away on many issues. One must recognise that. Whether one is happy about it or not, it has happened on a range of issues. I shall not bore the Committee with examples. I do not object to what has happened in that regard—it is not a problem for me—but why can all the other members of the EU happily sign protocol 6 without finding the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and others particularly onerous?
To me as an abolitionist, and I should have though to other abolitionists, what the hon. Gentleman says is a powerful argument for incorporating the protocol. Bearing in mind those crimes that were subject to capital punishment before 1965, and all those miscarriages of justice of which we have had a calendar in the past two decades, it would be just as well if we were fettered in that way.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: No, I shall not do so for a moment, because we have exhausted that part of the argument.
I come finally to a matter that caused the amendment to be signed not only by me but by those of my hon. Friends who are part of the British delegation to the Council of Europe, as well as by other of my hon. Friends. Just before Christmas, a country that is a member of the Council of Europe was responsible for a series of secret executions. The families of those executed were not informed of either the date or the place of the executions until considerably later.
In January, the Council of Europe was concerned with ratifying the credentials of the members of that country's Parliament who had signed and accepted the Council of Europe's charter and convention. The British delegation was strong in its demand to know how people who had flouted undertakings that they had given to the Council of Europe could remain within a parliamentary assembly. We were well supported by representatives from all parties in this House and from other Parliaments on the issue. That country was forced to change its attitude, to stop its executions and to give undertakings from which its people would benefit.
However, in making the argument that we had not murdered or executed anyone for nearly 50 years—perhaps a little less than that—we were continually told that we had not even signed protocol 6. At that time, the death penalty for treason and piracy remained on the statute book. We shall not always be in that position.
The Government's position is inconsistent and contradictory. We welcome other countries' ratification of death penalty protocols and we urge them to do so, we call for the universal abolition of the death penalty, but we refuse to accede to the death penalty protocol itself. We do that so that Parliament can reintroduce the death penalty. That is the nature of the argument.
Therefore, in the interests of our international standing and consistency, I urge the Committee to take on board what the Home Secretary said in the White Paper—that this is a matter of conscience to be decided by Members of Parliament as they see fit. I reiterate the point that I made earlier: that the view taken so far is that this issue is not a matter of basic constitutional principle.

Mr. Maclennan: I have much sympathy with the arguments that have just been deployed by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I take issue with the view that the death penalty is not a constitutional issue. If the Government deploy that argument against the amendment tonight, their argument will be flawed. In the Bill of Rights of the United States, there are provisions that have been variously interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States as both allowing and not allowing capital punishment, but that they are constitutional issues is not in doubt.
It is inconsistent with that argument that in the Bill we are incorporating article 3 of the European convention, which proscribes cruel and unusual punishment. Many people would take the view that capital punishment was clearly proscribed by that article. Capital punishment as conducted in several countries would unquestionably be ruled out by article 3.
Protocol 6 is a belt and braces measure, which we should adopt and support as a nation to put beyond doubt our abhorrence of capital punishment. It is particularly appropriate to do so at a time when the United Kingdom is seeking to exert its moral authority to bring about political reform, and using other countries' attitude to capital punishment as a litmus test of whether reform is sufficiently under way to merit new relationships with them.
I have great sympathy with the objectives of those who support the amendment, but I have some doubt about whether it is appropriate as a means of ratifying the protocol. I would have preferred the Executive to announce their intention to ratify the protocol and, as a consequence of that decision, to include it in the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Hull, North. To say that it is simply a matter of judgment and conscience to be decided by Members of Parliament as they see fit is to misunderstand the concerns of constitutional law and is inconsistent with our acceptance of article 3 of the European convention.

Mr. Grieve: I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and I appreciate the sincerity of his desire not only for capital punishment to be abolished for all offences—in practice, it is not in operation in the United Kingdom—but for us to sign up to the international obligation under protocol 6, which hitherto no Government have done.
No Government have done so because the matter remains one of intense public debate in this country. It is a matter of conscience for Members of Parliament. As we all know from going out into our constituencies, it is also a matter on which the public may have substantially different views from the majority in the House. That has been consistently shown by every opinion poll taken on the subject over many years.
My complaint about the manner in which the amendment is being introduced goes not to the right of the House to legislate on the issue, but to the fact that


I—although not necessarily all members of my party—have been a proponent of incorporation, based on our obligations under the European convention as it now stands, to which we have signed up.
If the consequence of the amendment is that the scope of the convention is altered without the opportunity for adequate public debate, I fear that we shall forfeit the regard of the public in respect of this proposal. Because I am in favour of the proposal and have made no secret of it, that particularly disappoints me.
There is ample scope for those who share the hon. Gentleman's view to raise an Adjournment debate and to lobby Ministers to sign up to protocol 6. That should be the subject of legitimate public debate, because it has a knock-on effect on the ability of the House to review the position, as it has traditionally done, once every Parliament. I fear that, if we start to go down that road when there is no necessity to do so, the public will ask what Parliament has done.

Mr. McNamara: On the matter of lobbying, on Second Reading of the Crime and Disorder Bill, I intervened and asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State about that. He replied:
As my hon. Friend is well aware, that is covered by the Human Rights Bill rather than this Bill."—[Official Report, 8 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 451.]
As urged by my hon. Friend, I have raised the matter now.

Mr. Grieve: I find the logic of that statement rather difficult to follow. Of course it is possible for us to extend the abolition of the death penalty for murder to every category that remains on the statute book, and once every Parliament we can review the matter and have a vote, and there will be public debate in the country at large on the matter. We can ratify the protocol, and there will be public debate on that.
I return to the point that to do that through an amendment, which is unexpected as it did not arise from public debate, would be remarkable and undesirable. Far from encouraging acceptance of the principle of incorporation, it will tend towards the opposite effect. I am not surprised, therefore, that Ministers may have had some anxiety and doubts on the subject. The question of the death penalty, the morality of it and the issue of conscience are all legitimate matters for debate. Although we have never ratified protocol 6, we have never breached it because there has been no need to do so. In peacetime, that would be extremely unusual.
If we accept the amendment, we are usurping the right of the citizens of this country to pronounce on the issue, and we are doing so for no good reason. It will vitiate the effect of the Bill, which is in other ways so desirable. I understand why the amendment was tabled, but I ask the hon. Member for Hull, North to reconsider, and I ask all hon. Members to consider carefully whether, even if they support the intention behind the amendment, this is the proper way to achieve it.

Fiona Mactaggart: I find the two arguments against the amendment extremely disappointing. The second, articulated by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), is that the amendment is unfair because we did not know that it was coming up. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I raised the matter on Second Reading.

I argued that we should sign the protocol as part of the incorporation of the European convention. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) intervened to ask me whether I was suggesting that we should sign the protocol, and I confirmed that. If those who think that we should not do so are now claiming that this is an ambush, they have not been doing their job properly.

Mr. Grieve: I am not suggesting that it is an ambush on me, or on others of us who may object to incorporation. This has consistently been a subject of legitimate public debate for many years. The proposal will make continuing public debate and the possible review of previous decisions made by Parliament extremely difficult without serious knock-on effects. We shall not be lightly forgiven by the public if we go down that road.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman has joined the two arguments. The second argument relates to the ambush and the first asks what is the important part of the British constitution. Is it the right of the House to determine this issue once every Parliament or is it re-fashioning the constitution—on the basis of which the Labour party was elected—to reconstitute the constitutional settlement in the United Kingdom? Many people believed that we would not do that, but we have demonstrated our determination to re-fashion the constitution of the United Kingdom vigorously during this Parliament.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Does the hon. Lady seriously suggest that it is not the prerogative of the United Kingdom Parliament to decide the criminal law and criminal penalties for this country?

6 pm

Fiona Mactaggart: I am suggesting that we should re-fashion the constitution to base it on the concept of human rights. If we do that by incorporating the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law, we shall be saying that the people's fundamental human rights are more important than the right of Parliament to debate those issues.

Mr. Bercow: I must say, in all candour, that if the hon. Lady thinks that the constituents of Slough sent her to Parliament because they were hoping for a re-fashioning of the constitutional settlement, she is deluding herself. Is she so persuaded not only of the rectitude of her case, but of the public support for it, that, in her address during the election campaign, she told her potential constituents that she would vote permanently to deny the House of Commons the entitlement to re-establish the death penalty if it wished to do so?

Fiona Mactaggart: Like that of the hon. Gentleman, my election address was relatively brief. I did not inform the good voters of Slough of everything that the Government would do. However, in my speeches and in my conversations with the voters of Slough, I made absolutely clear my commitment to the incorporation of the European convention on human rights and to a human rights-based constitution. The hon. Gentleman may ask any voter in my constituency about the degree to which I did that. I am not ambushing my constituents: I made it


clear that I believed that centring the constitution on the human rights of the people was an important change in the governance of the United Kingdom.
In international human rights law, the most fundamental human right is the right to life. The first right referred to in article 2 of the convention is the right to life, which can be derogated in certain circumstances—through the death penalty, for example. The third article in the convention refers to the right to freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment.
If we believe in protecting the rights of the citizen and in using international human rights instruments to do that, we have a responsibility to protect the citizen from judicial murder. We have an opportunity today to sign a protocol that entrenches the abolition of the death penalty in peacetime, and I believe that the time has come to do that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North for giving us the opportunity to become a public part of the international community of states that have rejected the death penalty because they respect the human rights of their citizens.

Mr. Garnier: I shall not detain the Committee for long. "Shocked" is perhaps too grand a word to use to describe my reaction to the speech by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). It is interesting to note that the hon. Lady referred to "re-fashioning" the constitution and to "entrenching" the abolition of the death penalty in peacetime. I candidly admit that I voted not to reintroduce the death penalty every time I had a chance to do so in the last Parliament. When I was selected in 1989–90 to contest the seat of Harborough on behalf of the Conservatives in the 1992 election, I told my constituency association that I opposed the death penalty for murder. Nothing that I have heard or learnt in the intervening period—until today—has persuaded me that it should be reintroduced into our civil criminal courts for murder convictions.
As I said on Second Reading not so long ago, while I oppose the death penalty in run-of-the-mill murder cases, I am not convinced that we should abandon the state's right to impose the death penalty in time of war. Some people may claim that my approach is contradictory, but I believe that special circumstances apply during a state of emergency and during times of war.

Fiona Mactaggart: Under the sixth protocol, there is a requirement to abolish the death penalty only during time of peace and not during time of war.

Mr. Garnier: The hon. Lady is perfectly right. However, article 2—which she will find on page 15 of the Bill—states:
Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
The convention makes the death penalty available for murder convictions or other offences during time of peace. Therefore, there are inconsistencies in the convention with which the hon. Lady must come to terms, as will I.
It is not necessarily the fault of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that his amendment is inconsistent. The reason for that can be found in articles 1 and 2 of the sixth protocol. As the hon. Lady pointed out correctly, article 1 states:
The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.
That seems fairly definite—we could not claim that it is ambiguous. However, article 2 of the sixth protocol says:
A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war".
We must read that article in conjunction with the article to which I referred previously to appreciate my point about internal inconsistencies within the convention.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: I hesitate to intervene, as I entered the Chamber only recently. However, I understand that article 2 refers to extra-judicial killings and thus should not be interpreted in the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has done.

Mr. Garnier: I am not so sure that I understand the concept of the lawful extra-judicial killing, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman may explain it to me later if he catches your eye, Mr. Lord. If he thinks that extra-judicial killing means killing in the heat of war, he is very much mistaken, because that is not what the articles are about.
The hon. Member for Hull, North is premature in moving this amendment. For reasons of his own—he is a well-known advocate of the cause that he advanced today—he is getting ahead of another piece of legislation, the Crime and Disorder Bill. That legislation will give every hon. Member a chance to exercise his or her conscience and vote one way or the other on the question of abolishing the death penalty. I believe that the provisions in that Bill go far beyond what the hon. Gentleman seeks to introduce into law today through his amendment.
I shall be in a degree of difficulty over the Crime and Disorder Bill, which seeks to abolish the death penalty for military crimes or crimes against the state during the course of war, which I would disapprove of, while I wholly approve of the non-return of the death penalty for murder.

Mr. McNamara: Article 13 does not affect legislation for the armed forces. It affects only specific legislation that is contained within the article.

Mr. Garnier: I am sorry, but I did not hear the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The simple point is that there will be an opportunity for Members to exercise their conscience on the question of the death penalty shortly. The hon. Gentleman said as much in a response to an intervention from, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The hon. Gentleman is attempting to stymie or snooker the Committee into reaching a conclusion today on a decision that it will have the opportunity fully to debate in due course.
This evening, we do not have very much longer to discuss the mammoth subject before us. I applaud the hon. Member for Hull, North for raising the subject, but I think that he has chosen the wrong day and the wrong time.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am listening to my hon. and learned Friend's argument with care. Let us say that the House of Commons decides on a subsequent occasion to approve the motion that the death penalty in its entirety should be abolished. Is my hon. and learned Friend saying that at that point, and because of that vote, it would be right to ratify the sixth protocol, or is he saying that this matter should always be left at large so that the House of Commons could at some stage reintroduce the death penalty if it so chose?

Mr. Garnier: Probably the best way at this stage in which to answer my right hon. and learned Friend's question is to invite him to read clause 1(4), which allows the Secretary of State to amend the list of protocols contained in the Bill. I have no doubt that if the House of Commons decides in future to accept the Government's proposals as set out in the Crime and Disorder Bill, the Under-Secretary of State and the Home Secretary will want to examine clause 1(4) to see what they should do about it. I am not suggesting that we should get ahead of ourselves. When we have an opportunity to debate the military or wartime death penalty, we should allow that debate to proceed in an orderly way, rather than dealing with the issue in a short debate this afternoon.
The hon. Members for Slough and for Hull, North candidly admitted that they wanted to prevent further discussion. They want to ensure that the matter is dealt with here and now, subject to the procedures of the House of Commons and of another place in reviewing what we have done. As I have said, I disagree with them. Their attempt, though no doubt well intended, is wrong and should not be acceded to.
I am interested in the Government's proposals for whipping Members such as the hon. Members for Slough and for Hull, North. No doubt we shall hear about them in a moment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do precisely as he wants. Why should he not? He was elected to this place to make up his own mind on the various matters that come before us. The hon. Lady is newer to this place, and she may be receiving advice shortly on her pager.
I have no doubt that this is an amendment that should not be accepted by the Committee, irrespective of the sincerity of the hon. Member for Hull, North and that of his hon. Friends who have put their names to it.

Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West): I support the amendment because it is morally right. It enhances our international prestige as a country and removes the inconsistencies that were so graphically illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I congratulate him on instigating such an important debate on a vital issue.
I direct the attention of the Committee, and particularly that of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, to clauses 19(1) and 10(2). I am interested to hear the ministerial response in explaining the effect of these two provisions. As I understand it, the argument advanced against the amendment is that it would tie the hands of future Parliaments in having a substantive debate on the issue of abolition. As has been said, that is an issue of great concern. However, public opinion can change. It could demand that a measure be introduced into the House of Commons to reinstate the death penalty.
6.15 pm
Under clause 19(1)(b), it seems that, even if a Minister comes to the House of Commons to present a Bill reinstating the death penalty, there will be discretion. Even if it is determined that there is incompatibility between that Bill and the Bill that is before us, the Minister will have a residual discretion to go ahead. Clause 19(1)(b) provides that, in the event of incompatibility, the Secretary of State may say that, although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility, the Government nevertheless wish the House of Commons to proceed with the Bill.
I am saying that the drafting of the Bill does not preclude a substantive debate on that issue. Clause 10(2) deals with the remedial procedure in the event of a court declaring that an Act is incompatible with convention rights. It imports in terms the word "appropriate". There is an element of discretion in the hands of the Government to allow a substantive debate on the substantive issue. The point made ably by Opposition Members is, in my view, answered if their real concern is to protect the sovereignty of Parliament. I shall be most interested to hear the ministerial response to that.

Mrs. Theresa May: I was interested in this matter as I approached consideration of the Bill in Committee. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), especially because his views on the issue were contrary to those of the Government, which had been expressed in another place and set out in the White Paper. I was disappointed in the hon. Gentleman's speech because, although he was speaking with considerable sincerity about a cause that he believed in with some passion, I found it difficult to follow the logic of his arguments. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that it appears that it was suggested that he should bring the matter forward in this debate by the Minister. However, I found that some of his answers to interventions from my right hon. and hon. Friends did not tie up with his earlier comments.

Mr. McNamara: May I assure the hon. Lady that, irrespective of whether my hon. Friend the Minister had made the suggestion—the way in which he spoke suggested that he was not exactly encouraging me to bring the matter forward—I tabled the amendments because they had been well aired in the other place as well as on Second Reading.

Mrs. May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, clarification, although he indicated earlier that it had been suggested that the matter should be brought forward this evening.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head with uncanny precision. Is not an example of the inconsistency of the contribution of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) his belief that he and his hon. Friends should have the right to exercise their consciences to vote for the amendment, and thereby permanently prevent the return of the death penalty, while simultaneously seeking to deny the right of a future House of Commons to exercise its conscience in a direction with which the hon. Gentleman happens to disagree?

Mrs. May: As ever, my hon. Friend has, with his usual perspicacity—[Interruption.] I think that hon. Members


know the word that I was looking for, which is entirely appropriate when describing my hon. Friend. He hit the nail on the head in picking out a particularly illogical comment made by the hon. Member for Hull, North. In response to an earlier intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), he said that he did not want to fetter Parliament and that this issue was not about fettering Parliament. As my hon. Friend pointed out, he went on to make it absolutely clear that he intended to fetter Parliament, and he was supported by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who made it clear that she wanted to entrench this provision and thereby fetter Parliaments of the future.

Mr. David Lock: I apologise for interrupting the flow of praise to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). It is nice to hear him praised occasionally; I am sure that he appreciated it.
If the hon. Lady wants seriously to argue that future Parliaments will have no opportunity to intervene, I shall be interested to hear how she answers the detailed and wholly accurate point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), who explained precisely why that was not the case. I look forward to hearing her explain why he is wrong.

Mrs. May: I was making a point about the illogical comments of the hon. Member for Hull, North. He and Ministers said that they intended and hoped to fetter future Parliaments on the issue of the death penalty. I refer the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) to the fact that the Minister in the House of Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that it was not simply a theoretical question of whether future Parliaments would be able to consider this issue and take a decision, but that,
if we ratified Protocol 6, we could not reintroduce the death penalty for murder, short of renouncing the convention".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 1997; Vol. 583, c. 504–5.]
That is my concern.
I am also concerned that this afternoon's debate is not about the death penalty. Although it is entirely right and proper that the Committee should have such a debate—as it happens, my views on the death penalty are similar to those expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—I believe that the House of Commons has the right to decide, when hon. Members wish, whether the death penalty should be reintroduced or whether it is appropriate to have it within our legislation for circumstances that still exist. We shall have a proper debate on the death penalty when we discuss the Crime and Disorder Bill. However, that is not what this afternoon's debate is supposed to be about.
I am worried about what will happen. A future debate in terms of this amendment would not simply be about whether the death penalty was right; it would be about the wider issue of the convention. Any decision taken would not simply be a decision on the death penalty. I agree with the Government in their "Rights Brought Home" paper that this is a matter of judgment and conscience, to be decided by individual Members of Parliament as they see fit, and that it should not be regarded as part of the broader issue of whether the convention as a whole is correct. That is precisely why it is important to retain the right to

bring the issue of the death penalty before the House of Commons. Future Parliaments must not be fettered in that respect, which is why I shall not support the amendment.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on introducing the amendment. I had not intended to speak until I heard a Conservative Member argue that there was no point in supporting the amendment on the ground that it was of no practical relevance because no executions had taken place in this country for some decades.
Let me respond by saying that we should not be so insular. The issue has practical relevance in other countries. Many of us are regularly contacted by Amnesty International asking us to take up the case of someone in danger of being executed, and it would certainly help us to have more moral authority in such questions if we were to sign the protocol. It would show that we rejected any possibility of going back to exercising the death penalty in peacetime.
I have not read the debate in the other place, and the acoustics in the Chamber made it hard to hear tonight exactly what the Opposition's reasoning was. What I seemed to pick up was that they thought that the proposal was all right in principle, but not yet. If that is the case, I should like to hear more from the Government about their reasoning because I think that the amendment should be supported, if possible tonight.

Mr. Hogg: The arguments are more finely balanced than some of my right hon. Friends have suggested. However, my conclusion is that we should not sign up to the protocol, and I am therefore against the amendment.
The narrow question is whether it is right permanently to exclude this House's ability effectively to reinstate the death penalty. I can think of no foreseeable circumstances in which I would support the restoration of the death penalty and I have voted against it on many an occasion. That, however, is not conclusive of the issue, because we must ask ourselves whether we should exclude from the powers of the House the ability to take such a decision.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, the noble Lord Williams of Mostyn in the other place said—I believe correctly—that, if we signed up to protocol 6, the House could not reinstate the death penalty without derogating from the convention. Therefore, if we accept the amendment, the House will no longer have the ability to reinstate the death penalty. Although I shall always oppose such a measure, it would not be right to exclude it from the range of powers available to the House.

Mr. Maclennan: I am surprised to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman throw his weight behind the view that the signing of the protocol would permanently exclude the possibility of the House returning to the issue. He was a member of a Government who derogated from provisions of the convention to deal with the position, as they saw it, in Northern Ireland. By his argument, that matter might have been considered to be beyond the consideration of this House—it was not.

Mr. Hogg: I have considered, and I accept, the advice given in the other place by the noble Lord Williams of


Mostyn on this matter, which received a great deal of support in that place. Even if he were not right, if we sign up to the protocol we shall exclude the House from the ability to reintroduce the death penalty. Therefore, either because of a finding of law or because of the reality, the House could not do that. Although I can think of no circumstances in which I would wish the House to do that, it is wrong in principle to preclude it from doing so.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I offer my compliments to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for introducing the amendment? I also offer my compliments to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for his intervention a minute ago, when he reminded the Committee of what this Government have done in the past—

Mr. McNamara: That Government.

Dr. Godman: Yes. That lot when they were in office—those whom I now facetiously call the English rural party. The right hon. Gentleman was right to point out what they did on the question of Northern Ireland.
I say to hon. Members and to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) that, throughout my time as a Member of Parliament, my constituents have known where I stand: four square against the death penalty. I have conveyed that perspective to them at public meetings and through the columns of that august journal, the Greenock Telegraph.
When the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) talked about military executions, a shiver ran down my back, because I oppose military executions and the imposition of the death sentence on soldiers and others by courts martial. I gained experience of courts martial, albeit it many years ago in my mis-spent youth, because I was in the Royal Military Police. Although the cases that I was involved in were not serious, I have said in the House over and over again, especially during the passage of the Armed Services Bill, which is a quinquennial event, that I have no trust in our system of courts martial.
6.30 pm
When the hon. and learned Gentleman talked about military executions, I decided to speak, if only for a few minutes. I am totally opposed to the death penalty. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) will accuse me of illogicality for supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North, but when he puts his amendment to the vote, I shall be in the Lobby with him because of what is, I hope, my principled opposition to the death penalty.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) will know, an old friend of mine in Aberdeen, Councillor Robert Middleton, witnessed one of the last executions in Scotland. That experience was recounted to me one evening in his house, and it strengthened my determination to fight the death penalty when I was elected to the House.
Although I have complimented the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, I was not taken by his observation vis-à-vis the constitution and this issue. In my view, it has to be determined by Members of Parliament after rigorous examination of their

consciences. That is what I have done. My constituents know where I stand, and I shall vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North. I shall give way to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, who will have to be brief.

Mr. Garnier: I shall endeavour to be brief, because this is an intervention.
I yield to no man in my admiration for the huge service that the hon. Gentleman gave to his country as a member of the RMP. I heard all about it in a bus, when we were in Bosnia monitoring the elections. He told me, day in, day out, about his experiences in the RMP, which was very kind.
I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. He referred to the expression "military executions"; if he considered it within the context of my few remarks, but in the entirety of them, he would understand that I was talking about offences against the state committed in time of war. If I used an unfortunate shorthand, I apologise for giving the wrong impression. I was talking about the right of the state to do what I would disapprove of in other circumstances—that is, in ordinary cases of murder: to resort to the death penalty, in time of war.

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Godman: May I first answer the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough? My hon. Friend is too eager.
I recall swapping accounts of military exploits with the hon. and learned Gentleman when we were in the hot spot of Brcko. We were, if I remember correctly, protected by seven members of the Special Air Service. The hon. and learned Gentleman—he was too modest to admit it in his intervention—reminded me several times that, while I was a non-commissioned officer, being Labour, he enjoyed the Queen's commission, as have a lot of Conservative Members. Most of them are ex-Guards officers.
In relation to Northern Ireland and the remarkable excellence of the infantry regiments that we send on United Nations peacekeeping missions, I am pleased—thrilled, in fact—that they are Members of Parliament and no longer serving with the armed forces.

Mr. McNamara: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but the hon. and learned Member for Harborough obviously has not read the amendment, which mentions "Articles One and Two". Article 2 specifically provides a derogation for a state to have the death penalty in time of war. Therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument falls.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but, even in times of war, I would question the sentence of death by courts martial as they are currently constituted, especially where officers were dealing with the lives of NCOs and other lower ranks.
I shall support my hon. Friend when he puts his amendment to the vote, and it is right and proper that hon. Members support it. We are putting remarkable, radical


and wide-ranging constitutional change through the House. The amendment is part of that, and I hope that Labour Members will support our hon. Friend.

Mrs. Laing: The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) spoke passionately about his principles and beliefs, which are against the death penalty. I do not disagree with him about them, but he has missed the point of the amendment. If it is passed, his principles and beliefs, like those of every hon. Member, will be irrelevant, because there will not be another discussion of the merits or otherwise of the death penalty in the House, which is the correct forum for such a debate.
I agree with the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and others who spoke passionately about the fundamental human right—the right to life. The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) were correct in that, but the problem is their suggestion that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is not sufficiently responsible to protect that fundamental human right. That ridiculous suggestion is the basis of the hon. Lady's argument.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Laing: For the sake of time, I cannot; I am sorry.
It was suggested by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) that accepting the amendment would enhance our international prestige. The opposite will happen. The international prestige of this country would be diminished, as would the prestige of Parliament, by the suggestion that the House is not competent and has to be told by other institutions how to legislate on such a fundamental matter as the administration of justice and the death penalty.
I vehemently oppose the death penalty and vehemently defend the right to life, but I also defend the right of Parliament to make the criminal law of this country and the right of hon. Members properly to debate the death penalty, at any time that we want to do so.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Let me make it clear that, as far as the Government are concerned, this is a free vote. I shall express the personal view of myself and of the Home Secretary, but no Government Whip has been asked by us to act as a Teller. This is a matter of conscience for hon. Members.
The Government's position was set out clearly in the White Paper:
The view taken so far is that the issue is not one of basic constitutional principle but is a matter of judgement and conscience to be decided by Members of Parliament as they see fit. For these reasons, we do not propose to ratify Protocol 6 at present.
The amendments would add the two substantive articles of protocol 6, involving the abolition of the death penalty, except for acts committed in time of war or imminent threat of war, to the convention rights. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that the argument was finely balanced, and I agree. The issue is not just whether we agree with the death penalty. The tendency is often to discuss these issues emotively because, obviously, hon. Members feel strongly about them, but there is a need to examine the proposal with great consideration.
Before introducing the Bill, Ministers conducted a review of the United Kingdom's position on the three protocols to the convention that contain substantive rights that we had not ratified. Those are protocols 4, 6 and 7. We explained in the White Paper "Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill" that we intended to sign and to ratify protocol 7 once an opportunity arose to remove some inconsistencies between our domestic law and the protocol's provisions. However, we judged that we should not ratify protocols 4 or 6 at this time or to include them in the Bill.
In the past three decades, the House has repeatedly opposed the death penalty. Indeed, in the previous substantial debate in the previous Parliament, I spoke strongly against it. Neither the Home Secretary nor I believe that the House will restore it, but we also take the view that this is not the time to block the rights of Members of Parliament in all conscience to debate and to vote on restoring it.
My personal view and that of the Home Secretary is that Parliament should be free to decide on death penalty matters on a free vote, and that protocol 6 would make a free vote difficult. Ratification of the protocol, from which no derogation or reservation is permitted, would interfere with the ability of a United Kingdom Parliament to consider the issue in future, short of effectively denouncing the convention.
Our constituents widely engage in the debate about the death penalty. Should Parliament prevent itself from debating issues that the public debate? That would be the effect if we embraced protocol 6. We would restrict and put a block on our ability to debate the issue. Assuming that the convention would remain law, if we embraced protocol 6, we would remove the decision on the death penalty from Members of Parliament for all time, and place it in the realm of international law.
The death penalty is a sensitive and difficult issue. This is not the time, nor is this the Bill, to implement the amendment. The issue is not about supporting or opposing the death penalty, but about the procedure for doing so: is a new procedural hurdle to be placed in the way of those hon. Members who wish to bring this matter before the House?

Mr. Maclennan: In the light of the Minister's helpful indication that the Government do not propose to put on a Whip tonight, can he say how the Government would view the passing of the amendment? Would they take it as an instruction of the House and proceed, notwithstanding the view that he has expressed on behalf of himself and the Home Secretary, to ratify the protocol?

Mr. O'Brien: The answer to that is yes. May I make it clear, if the right hon. Gentleman is in any doubt, that, on this issue, we are not putting in Whips, but that, on other issues tonight, we may decide to do so.
These are important issues, so let me take this argument a little further; it is important that hon. Members understand them.
I accept that it would be possible for the death penalty to be reintroduced by a future vote of Parliament, but only by way of an amendment to what would then be the Human Rights Act, if Parliament wills it. However, it would be contrary to the principles of the Bill and of the convention.
The Bill's purpose is to give further effect in domestic law to those rights that the United Kingdom has an obligation under the convention to secure to individuals in its jurisdiction. The inclusion of articles 1 and 2 of protocol 6 within the Bill's definition of the convention rights would grant rights in this country that we are not, at present, internationally bound to secure. It appears to be an academic point, and I do not want to go into angels dancing on pinheads, but it is an important part of the Government's view that the Bill is about giving access to rights, rather than creating new areas of law.

Mr. Grieve: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I agree with every word. Is it not true that the Government would sign up to such a protocol only after widespread public consultation and that one feature of the way in which we are approaching the matter tonight is that such public consultation, which is an essential part of the process of government, as the Prime Minister has often said, has been bypassed?

Mr. O'Brien: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I can see why he might take that view, but the issue is raised in the White Paper and, in a sense, there was consultation on its provisions. This has been on the House's agenda, and hon. Members have been free to discuss it. It is an important issue.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: I appreciate the sensitive way in which my hon. Friend is handling an obviously sensitive issue, but may I seek some guidance from him on the interpretation that he puts on the point that I raised earlier concerning the interpretation of clauses 19 and 10, in the light of the view that there is residual discretion on Parliament to have a substantive debate on reinstatement?

Mr. O'Brien: Parliament could certainly debate that issue, but let us be clear: if we agree to the amendment, we will have a hurdle, a block on making a decision to restore the death penalty. Hon. Members will have to decide whether they wish at this stage to put that hurdle or block in the way of the House.
As the Committee will be aware, amendments to the Crime and Disorder Bill were agreed in Committee last week and in another place in March. They abolish the death penalty for all but certain military offences. I hope that we will succeed in removing from the statute book the last vestiges of the death penalty for civilian offences of treason and piracy as a result of that Bill, so the Government's view on the issue is clear, but Ministers with responsibility for defence are considering issues relating to the Army and the Navy. This is not—I express a personal view on behalf of the Home Secretary and myself—the time to prejudge their deliberations. If that Bill were enacted with those amendments in place, it would not affect our position on whether articles 1 and 2 of protocol 6 should be added to the convention rights that are set out in the Human Rights Bill.
Some concerns have been expressed that, if we do not ratify protocol 6, the UK will be unable to campaign effectively against the use of the death penalty in other countries. We do not see that as a serious difficulty. We are able to support international calls for the abolition of the death penalty because Parliament has repeatedly voted against capital punishment. In the current Parliament, any motion to reintroduce capital punishment is likely to be defeated by a large majority.
On 11 October 1997, at the summit of the Council of Europe, the Prime Minister signed the Council of Europe declaration calling for the universal abolition of the death penalty. That demonstrates that we are able to take a positive stand on this issue and encourage others to do so, but it does not require the inclusion of article 6.
The issue before us in the amendment is precise; it is not whether we oppose the death penalty—I oppose the death penalty—but whether, on an issue on which all parties give a free vote, the Committee should restrict the ability of the current minority of Members of Parliament who support the death penalty to put that matter of conscience before the House on a vote that could change the law. Parliament will not be best served at this time if it accepts the amendment.
I repeat—this is a free vote, as all hon. Members are aware. The Home Secretary and I have expressed our advice, but each Member can exercise his or her own conscience on this matter.

Mr. James Clappison: This has been an interesting debate, and we have heard excellent speeches by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I also pay tribute to the way in which the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) moved the amendment. He did so with sincerity and some skill. I respect his passionately held views against the death penalty, and I appreciate that he wishes to take every opportunity to press that case.
The hon. Gentleman was right to start by giving a recent history of the death penalty. He was correct to say that it was abolished as a sentence for murder on a free vote of the House in 1965. As he said, the matter was considered more recently when treason and piracy—the remaining offences, apart from armed forces offences, for which the death penalty remains a sentence—were discussed in the Standing Committee on the Crime and Disorder Bill. There was a free vote in the Committee on those matters. If the issues of treason and piracy are raised again when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House, we apprehend that there will again be a free vote.
It is right and appropriate that these matters should be decided, now and in the future, by the individual judgments and conscience of Members of the House on a free vote. The Minister was not giving away inside information that would bankrupt anyone in the bookmaking profession when he said that it was unlikely in the present Parliament that there would be a majority in favour of the return of the death penalty. That is true, given the present composition of the House.
We agree that a free vote should not be constrained by a decision to ratify articles 1 and 2 of the sixth protocol to the European convention. We appreciate that the article of the protocol that would not permit a derogation has not been included in the amendment; that point was made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and by the hon. Member for Hull, North, but that does not make their arguments entirely convincing. The amendment would, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, fetter the vote of the House in future. Hon. Members should be able to


decide the matter on a free vote without having to consider the implications concerning the European convention.
As the Committee will know, we have a long tradition, whichever party is in government, of honouring our obligations under the European convention on human rights, and it would be a shame to create the possibility that we would come into conflict with the convention, even though it would appear unlikely that, as presently constituted, the House would vote in favour of the return of the death penalty.
The Minister is right to say that this is a question of procedure and not, in this instance, of conscience. We should maintain the position that these matters should be decided on a free vote of the House.

Mr. Terry Davis: I welcome the announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister that there will be a free vote on the issue and that the Government will accept the decision of that vote and, if the amendment is made, ratify protocol 6 of the European convention on human rights. I express my appreciation to my hon. Friend. However, I do not accept his advice to reject the amendment. I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and ask all hon. Members to join us in the Lobby to vote for the amendment, and I shall explain why.
My hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that he was expressing a personal position. I not only express my personal position—for which, like many of my hon. Friends, I have had to suffer consequences at the ballot box—but, as the leader of our delegation to the Council of Europe Assembly, elected by my colleagues in the delegation, I urge the Committee to support the amendment. In doing so, I speak for most of the delegation, certainly for all its members on this side of the Committee and also for some on the Opposition Benches.
For once, I agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) when he says that the amendment should not be necessary. I expected the Government to ratify protocol 6 of the convention on the basis of clause 33 of the Crime and Disorder Bill, which removes from the statute book the last two offences for which the death penalty is still prescribed. On Second Reading, we were told by the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), that if we wanted the Government to ratify protocol 6, we must attempt to achieve that in the Human Rights Bill. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North has taken the initiative, with the support of many members of the delegation, in tabling the amendment.
The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot tell us that they do not have the authority to ratify protocol 6, and that it could not be done, as we thought it could, in the context of the Crime and Disorder Bill, but that it could be done in this Bill, and then ask us not to vote for the amendment. That is inconsistent. I am not surprised that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), has been asked to reply to the debate, because my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave us contradictory advice. He said, in the presence of the Home Secretary, that we should attempt to ratify the protocol in this Bill.
I must tell the Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), that this is an important issue, which will be noted in the rest of Europe. The amendment is not for all time. We are not, as Conservative Members said, trying to fetter the House of Commons in the future. Their argument would apply to the whole convention that is being introduced into our law by the Bill. On that basis, they could argue that the House would not be able to vote for torture—we shall not do so. We shall not vote for slavery or servitude or forced or compulsory labour. We shall not vote against the right to a fair trial. We shall not vote against prohibition against discrimination. The amendment would place the death penalty in the same category.

Mr. Grieve: I have two points. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says as he runs through the various articles of the convention. However, when the protocol was introduced in 1983—I think I am right in saying, but I am willing to stand corrected, that my father was then the chairman of the human rights committee of the Council of Europe—it was clearly stated that it was an evolutionary measure which could be introduced when the time was right. The hon. Gentleman said that the matter cost him votes, and I am sure that he will agree that this is a matter of intense public debate, on which our views and those of the public do not tally. Is that not a good reason why we should be wary of entrenching this position, whereas all the other articles that he listed are widely accepted, with no dissent?

Mr. Davis: That intervention has only delayed the completion of my speech, because I was about to deal with that point. If we pass the amendment, it will not stop our successors voting for a restoration of the death penalty if that is what they want, but it would mean that if they did so, they would be tearing up the European convention on human rights. That is true. Lord Williams of Mostyn made that point in the other place on behalf of the Government.
With great respect, I tell the Under-Secretary that, from my experience—regardless of whether we sign protocol 6; even if we do not sign it—if at some time in the future the House votes for restoration of the death penalty, the United Kingdom will be expected to withdraw from the Council of Europe—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. My colleagues from the delegation will agree that, internationally, feeling on the issue is so strong that we would risk being suspended from membership of the Council of Europe—[Interruption.] Yes, that is my view. I am entitled to my view, which is based on some experience of the Council of Europe, and I was one of those who criticised Ukraine for not fulfilling its obligations.
7 pm
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, even now, our Government are applauding Estonia's decision to ratify protocol 6. However, only last week, another Baltic country voted to retain the death penalty. In its Parliament, one of the strongest arguments was essentially, "Why should we abolish the death penalty when the United Kingdom has not yet signed protocol 6?" Its proponents of the death penalty shelter behind that fact—wrongly, but they do. That is an example of the international effect of our not signing the protocol. We are constantly being told that we are telling our colleagues in other parts of Europe to do as we say, not do as we do.
Human rights are at the centre of our foreign policy. Protocol 6 has tremendous symbolic importance. If we vote against the amendment, it will be impossible for many people in Europe to understand the House. It will also be very difficult for many people in this country to understand us.

Mr. McNamara: I shall not detain the Committee for very long, but will merely do two things. First, I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). I had some very evil thoughts about him, which, in time, I shall duly confess. I am very pleased, indeed, that the Government are not putting in Whips. I hope that all my hon. Friends have heard that—they can vote on the matter with a clear conscience.
Secondly, I should like to make some important points—reiterating ones made by two of my hon. Friends, first by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). The first one is that, if we want to, under the terms of the Bill, we can raise the issue again. The possibility is there.
The second point is that our country's reputation on the matter is at stake. I did not mention Ukraine as being the country that was under the cosh on the issue; my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) did. However—as my colleagues in the delegation will agree—the fact that we have not signed was a very powerful argument against those of us who raised the issue.
The third point is that, if we do not ratify protocol 6, people will continue to hide behind our actions.

Mr. Maclennan: Official Opposition spokesmen have asked the Committee to understand the basis of the Government's view. As it has been accepted—even by a number of Opposition Members—that we are considering a matter of individual conscience, is it not extraordinary that the official Opposition are not treating the matter as one of conscience? Are the official Opposition not distorting the opinion of the Committee, on a matter that even they have said should be decided as a matter of conscience?

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Grieve: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Despite the fact that this was described as a free vote, the Government Whips outside the Chamber are directing Labour Members into one Lobby—the contrary Lobby to that which the Home Secretary has entered— and telling them that this is a free vote on hanging, which it is not.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. [Interruption.] It would be nice if I could reply to that point of order, which is not a matter for the Chair.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 294, Noes 136.

Division No. 282]
[7.3 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Allan, Richard


Ainger, Nick
Allen, Graham


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Alexander, Douglas
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)





Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dobbin, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Doran, Frank


Atherton, Ms Candy
Drew, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)


Austin, John
Edwards, Huw


Baker, Norman
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Ennis, Jeff


Banks, Tony
Fearn, Ronnie


Barnes, Harry



Battle, John
Fisher, Mark


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Flint, Caroline


Benton, Joe
Follett, Barbara


Berry, Roger
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Betts, Clive
Foster, Don (Bath)


Blackman, Liz



Blears, Ms Hazel
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradshaw, Ben



Brand, Dr Peter
Gardiner, Barry


Breed, Colin
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gerrard, Neil


Browne, Desmond
Gibson, Dr Ian


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Buck, Ms Karen
Godman, Dr Norman A


Burden, Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Burgon, Colin
Goggins, Paul


Burnett, John



Burstow, Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gorrie, Donald


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Grogan, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hancock, Mike


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hanson, David


Cann, Jamie
Harris, Dr Evan


Caplin, Ivor
Harvey, Nick


Caton, Martin
Healey, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Chaytor, David
Heppell, John


Chidgey, David



Clapham, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hope, Phil


Clelland, David
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clwyd, Ann
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coaker, Vernon



Coffey, Ms Ann
Howells, Dr Kim


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Lindsay


Colman, Tony
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cooper, Yvette
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corston, Ms Jean
Hutton, John


Cranston, Ross
Iddon, Dr Brian


Crausby, David
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Jenkins, Brian



Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dafis, Cynog
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Darvill, Keith



Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones,Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dawson, Hilton
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Denham, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald






Keeble, Ms Sally
Prosser, Gwyn


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Quinn, Lawrie


Keetch, Paul
Radios, Giles


Kemp, Fraser
Rammell, Bill


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Rapson, Syd


Khabra, Piara S
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kidney, David
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rendel, David


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rooker, Jeff


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rooney, Terry


Kingham, Ms Tess
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowlands, Ted


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Roy, Frank


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Laxton, Bob
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lepper, David
Salter, Martin


Leslie, Christopher
Sanders, Adrian


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Savidge, Malcolm


Linton, Martin
Sawford, Phil


Livingstone, Ken
Sedgemore, Brian


Livsey, Richard
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lock, David
Singh, Marsha


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Snape, Peter


McDonnell, John
Soley, Clive


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Southworth, Ms Helen


McIsaac, Shona
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mackinlay, Andrew
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


McNamara, Kevin
Stinchoombe, Paul


MacShane, Denis
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mactaggart, Fiona
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stunell, Andrew


Mallaber, Judy
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Swinney, John


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Meale, Alan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Merron, Gillian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Tipping, Paddy


Milburn, Alan
Todd, Mark


Miller, Andrew
Touhig, Don


Mitchell, Austin
Trickett, Jon


Moffatt, Laura
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Moore, Michael
Tyler, Paul


Moran, Ms Margaret
Vaz, Keith


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Wallace, James


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Walley, Ms Joan


Morley, Elliot
Ward, Ms Claire


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
White, Brian


Mudie, George
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Mullin, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Oaten, Mark
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


O'Hara, Eddie



O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Willis, Phil


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Wills, Michael


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Brian


Perham, Ms Linda
Winnick, David


Pickthall, Colin
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Pike, Peter L
Wise, Audrey


Plaskitt, James
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Pond, Chris
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Pope, Greg
Wyatt, Derek


Pound, Stephen



Powell, Sir Raymond
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Mrs. Maria Fyfe and


Primarolo, Dawn
Ms Jenny Jones.





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Amess, David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Arbuthnot, James
Lansley, Andrew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Leigh, Edward


Baldry, Tony
Letwin, Oliver


Bayley, Hugh
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Beard, Nigel
Lidington, David


Bercow, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Loughton, Tim


Blizzard, Bob
Luff, Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Boswell, Tim
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Madel, Sir David


Brady, Graham
Malins, Humfrey


Brazier, Julian
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Browning, Mrs Angela
May, Mrs Theresa


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Michael, Alun


Butterfill, John
Moss, Malcolm


Byers, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Cash, William
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Chope, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Church, Ms Judith
Page, Richard


Clappison, James
Paterson, Owen


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Prior, David


Collins, Tim
Randall, John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Curry, Rt Hon David
Robathan, Andrew


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Day, Stephen
Ruffley, David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
St Aubyn, Nick


Dowd, Jim
Sayeed, Jonathan


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Evans, Nigel
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Faber, David
Soames, Nicholas


Fabricant, Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Steen, Anthony


Fox, Dr Liam
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Fraser, Christopher
Streeter, Gary


Gale, Roger
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Garnier, Edward
Swayne, Desmond


Gibb, Nick
Syms, Robert


Gill, Christopher
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gray, James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Green, Damian
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Greenway, John
Tredinnick, David


Grieve, Dominic
Trend, Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Tyrie, Andrew


Hammond, Philip
Viggers, Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Walter, Robert


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Wardle, Charles


Horam, John
Waterson, Nigel


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Whittingdale, John


Hunter, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Willetts, David


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Woodward, Shaun



Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Mr. James Cran and


Key, Robert
Mr. Oliver Heald

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. In view of the affirmative vote that has just taken place, would it not


be right for the Government to make a statement as soon as possible as to the intention of Ministers with regard to the sixth protocol and whether they intend to come back to the House with an Order in Council to give effect to what has just happened?

The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Martin. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) anticipates what I was about to say when I move the next amendment. We shall do so.
I beg to move amendment No. 137A, in page 1, line 12, leave out from beginning to 'any'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 117, in clause 2, clause 2, page 2, line 21, at end insert—
'( ) A Court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen under this Act in connection with a Convention right must give primacy so far as it is possible to do so to the freedom of the Christian and other principal religious traditions represented in the United Kingdom to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice or observance under Article 9.'.
Government amendment No. 137.
No. 8, in page 2, line 26, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 46, in clause 3, clause 3, page 2, line 37, after 'legislation', insert
'save for the Church of Scotland Act 1921'.
No. 100, in clause 6, clause 6, page 4, line 21, at end insert
'or a person listed in Schedule (Persons excluded from section 6).'
Government amendments Nos. 41, 138 and 44.
No. 55, in clause 7, clause 7, page 5, line 21, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'United Kingdom'.
No. 56, in page 5, line 22, at end insert—

'(8A) Any refusal by a minister, official or other person acting on behalf of a christian or other principal religious tradition represented in the United Kingdom to administer a marriage contrary to his religious doctrine or convictions shall not be unlawful under this Act.
(8B) Any refusal by a minister, official or other person acting on behalf of a christian or other principal religious tradition represented in the United Kingdom to admit a person to holy orders or to invest a person with ministerial functions in a religious tradition contrary to his religious doctrines or convictions shall not be unlawful under this Act.
(8C) Any refusal by a minister, official or other person acting on behalf of a christian or other principal religious tradition represented in the United Kingdom to administer sacrament to a person or to allow a person to take part in an act of religious observance contrary to his religious doctrines or convictions shall not be unlawful under this Act.
(8D) Any refusal by a minister, official or other person acting on behalf of a christian or other principal religious tradition represented in the United Kingdom to permit men and women to worship together or otherwise than in accordance with the doctrines or practices of his religious tradition shall not be unlawful under this Act.'.

No. 113, in page 5, line 24, leave out—
'(a) a church school;
(b)'.'
No. 114, in page 5, line 26, after 'association' insert

'in which the religious education is provided in accordance with the faith and practices of the religious foundation,'.
No. 115, in page 5, line 27, leave out from 'for' to 'whose' in line 28 and insert
'appointment as members of the teaching staff persons'.
No. 116, in page 5, line 30, leave out from 'person' to 'whose' in line 31 and insert
'who is a member of the teaching staff'.
No. 40, in page 5, line 32, at end insert—
'(9A) In relation to—

(a) a Church school; or
(b) a school or college with a religious foundation or trust deed or, as the case may be, memorandum or articles of association,

nothing in this Act shall be used to affect the ability of the church or religious body concerned to appoint as a governor a person whose beliefs and manner of life are appropriate to the basic ethos of the school, and nothing in this Act shall be used to affect the ability of the governors of the said school or college to introduce an admissions policy which gives priority to children from families whose beliefs are appropriate to the basic ethos of the school.'.
No. 57, in page 5, line 35, after 'deputy chief executive', insert finance director'.
No. 90, in clause 21, clause 21, page 13, leave out lines 13 and 14.
Government new clause 9—Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
New clause 12—Effect of determinations on religious rights—

'.—(1) If a court's determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by—

(a) a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively); or
(b) a charity with a religious foundation (itself or its members collectively)

of the Convention right to the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.
(2) In this section, "court" includes a tribunal.'.

New schedule 1—PERSONS EXCLUDED FROM SECTION 6—

1. Any priest, minister or other official of any church, religious denomination, mosque, synagogue or temple
2. Any person exercising functions under the authority of or on behalf of the membership of a church, religious denomination, mosque, synagogue or temple
3. Any person exercising functions in connection with the ecclesiastical courts of the Church of England.'.

Mr. Straw: First, I assure the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that, as the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said, we accept the will of the House on protocol 6. We shall consider the manner in which it should properly be implemented, and report to the House.
All the amendments are concerned with the impact of the Bill on the Churches and other bodies with a religious character. Many of them relate to those amendments made to the Bill in another place on Third Reading, which inserted a number of protections for such bodies. Those provisions are in part of clause 1(2), in clause 2(4) to (7), in clause 6(5) and (6) and in clause 7(8) to (10).
The issues were extensively debated in another place, and a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House of Commons commented on them on Second Reading in February. I said then that I would listen carefully to representatives of the Churches before I reached a conclusion on whether to advise the Committee to go along with the amendments made in another place. Since then, my noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn and I have had a number of meetings with representatives of the Churches and with a number of hon. Members—we have listened carefully to their concerns.
Before I speak on the amendments, it may be helpful if I say how the Government think that the Bill will operate in relation to the Churches. Much of what the Churches do is, in the legal context and in the context of the European convention on human rights, essentially private in nature, and would not be affected by the Bill even as originally drafted. For example, the regulation of divine worship, the administration of the sacrament, admission to Church membership or to the priesthood and decisions of parochial church councils about the running of the parish church are, in our judgment, all private matters.
In such matters, Churches will not be public authorities; the requirement to comply with convention rights will not bite on them. We do not believe that, for example, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland or the Roman Catholic Church, as bodies, would be public authorities under the Bill. I was asked to clarify that by many people, not least the Cardinal Archbishop.
On the occasions when Churches stand in place of the state, convention rights are relevant to what they do. The two most obvious examples relate to marriages and to the provision of education in Church schools. In both areas, the Churches are engaged, through the actions of the minister or of the governing body of a school, in an activity which is also carried out by the state, and which, if the Churches were not engaged in it, would be carried out directly by the state.
We think it right in principle—there was no real argument about it on Second Reading—that people should be able to raise convention points in respect of the actions of the Churches in those areas on the same basis as they will be able to in respect of the actions of other public authorities, however rarely such occasions may arise.
If that were not the case, the situation could arise, for example, in which teachers in most schools were required to comply with convention rights, but teachers in Church schools, which are wholly or mainly funded by the local education authorities, were not. Abuses of convention rights in one school would be amenable to correction in the domestic courts, whereas abuses in another school could be dealt with only at Strasbourg.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Church has the power to marry in a way that the state recognises, but the choice to get married in a church is entirely voluntary. Does that not alter the case?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. There was a time when one could get married only in church but, these days, marriage is a matter of civil law—it is the exercise of a public right. The Churches are standing in the stead of the state in arranging the

ceremony of marriage, which is recognised not only in canon law, but in civil law. In that instance, the Church is performing a function not only for itself, but for civil society.

Rev. Martin Smyth: In the context of education in Northern Ireland, Church schools—which are primarily under the management of Roman Catholic authorities—are not subject to equal rights and fair employment legislation in the appointment of teachers. Is the Home Secretary saying that, under the Bill, those Church schools will be subject to the convention? Moreover, although I understand that, in society, marriage may now be a civil matter, is the Home Secretary saying that an officiating minister of whatever denomination will have no right of conscience if he believes that a person has come to him for what are, in the Church's view, improper reasons?

Mr. Straw: On the second point, I say entirely the reverse. Of course a minister has a right of conscience—his duty to marry people is, first and foremost, a matter relating to the Church to which he belongs. If he conducts a marriage ceremony, that has an effect not only in canonical law, but in civil law. At that point, as I explained, the minister is exercising powers in the stead of the state.
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall explain how we propose in the School Standards and Framework Bill, rather than in this Bill, fully to satisfy the anxieties that have been expressed in the House of Commons and in another place about the right of Church schools of whatever denomination to ensure that those they appoint are those who accept the faith.
Concern was expressed that the Bill would require ministers of religion to do things that were contrary to their doctrine or belief, such as to conduct marriages between same-sex couples or divorced persons. We have never believed that the consequences of applying the Bill to Church representatives in those matters in their capacity as public authorities would be as adverse as has been predicted. Even without the amendments made in another place and the further proposals that are before the Committee today, the Bill provides two kinds of protection against such an occurrence—I make this point to emphasise that we were not careless of the issue before it was raised in the other place.
The first protection is that, under clause 2, the domestic courts will be required to have regard to the jurisprudence of convention institutions. Strasbourg case law is clearly to the effect that, under article 12 of the convention, the right to marry does not extend to persons of the same biological sex. Moreover, article 12 does not include the right to marry according to a particular ceremony of one's choice. The availability of a civil marriage is sufficient to meet the requirements of the article.
The second protection is that the courts will be required to give priority to domestic primary legislation over the convention rights in the event of a conflict that cannot be reconciled by judicial interpretation. Domestic primary legislation specifically provides that same-sex marriages are void, and although Church of England priests have a statutory duty to conduct marriages—the Church of


England is, by law, the established Church—they are specifically granted a discretion to refuse to marry divorced persons.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: The Home Secretary has described a situation in which primary law would have precedence over the convention. If primary law says that same-sex marriages are void, as it does at the moment, that takes priority. However, if primary law were to be changed and same-sex marriages were to become valid, where would that leave Churches in the interpretation of the convention?

Mr. Straw: We are talking about the application of the convention. In the domestic jurisdiction of Parliament, it would be open to the House of Commons, if it wanted, to say that same-sex marriages could apply. The right hon. Lady is asking me to speculate whether that would be outwith the convention.

Miss Widdecombe: My question is straightforward: if our civil law were to say at any stage that same-sex marriages were valid, and the teaching of the Church remained that they were not, where would that leave the Church?

Mr. Straw: I think that I understand the right hon. Lady's point. It would be open to Parliament to say that civil marriages could apply to same-sex couples, but that would palpably not apply to Churches.
There is a parallel with divorced couples. Since we allow divorce, we have to allow divorced people to remarry—well, we do not have to, but we do, and some of us have taken advantage of the facility and have been married more than once; in my experience, it saves living over the brush, as they say in Blackburn—but that applies to civil registrars and does not in any way affect the right of the Church of England to refuse to marry divorced people. The right of any Church, which we intend to strengthen, to refuse to marry divorced people remains protected by the convention.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The fundamental problem is the Government's unwillingness to define what constitutes a public authority. I do not want to be aggressive or offensive, but in a sense it does not matter what the Home Secretary says he believes or does not believe, because he has already said that the courts will decide. Given what he is asking the Committee to believe regarding his intention, the simplest way of dealing with the matter would be to write into the Bill the prohibitions to which he referred, to take away any ambiguity and provide clarity. Will he explain to the Committee why he refuses to do that?

Mr. Straw: If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I am seeking to explain why I do not find the amendments made in another place acceptable. I have sent him a detailed letter and had conversations with him, explaining that I am setting out an alternative that strengthens the law and goes a long way towards meeting the Churches' concerns, as the Cardinal Archbishop and the Archbishop of Canterbury have made clear, and as Baroness Young, who tabled those amendments, was generous enough to say in an article in The Daily Telegraph.
The right hon. Gentleman utters a truism when he says that it is for the courts to decide the interpretation of the Bill. That is true in any case: we pass the words, but it is for the courts to interpret them. The words may be perfectly clear, but sometimes the courts interpret them differently: that is a matter of fact.

Mr. Garner: Pepper v. Hart.

Mr. Straw: Indeed: the doctrine of that judgment is one of the aids that are available to the courts and allows them to look behind the words and consider Parliament's intention in so far as it has been expressed with clarity by the Minister concerned. We debated the definition of public authorities at great length, and it is our judgment that clause 6 provides a clear and robust definition.
There will be occasions—it is the nature of British society—on which various institutions that are private in terms of their legal personality carry out public functions. That includes the Churches in the narrow circumstances that I have described. I would suggest that it also includes the Jockey Club.
Other countries have public bodies to regulate racing; in this country, we do it in a different way. That is how we have always done it, and I know of no proposals to change the system. The Jockey Club is a curious body; it is entirely private, but exercises public functions in some respects, and to those extents, but to no other, it would be regarded as falling within clause 6.

Miss Widdecombe: The Home Secretary said that, under Pepper v. Hart, a Minister's explanations, if spoken with sufficient clarity, could be taken into account in interpreting the law. Will he now speak with exceeding clarity and assure the House categorically that it is the Government's intention—not what they believe, but their intention—that nothing in the convention, or in any incorporation of it into any part of our law whatever, will attenuate the Churches' right to doctrinal purity in matters of discharging public and private functions, and in employment?

Mr. Straw: I hope that the right hon. Lady will bear with me as I explain—

Miss Widdecombe: Ha!

Mr. Straw: I was about to give the right hon. Lady an absolutely affirmative answer, and it would have been easy to do so, but she spoiled her question by talking about private and public functions, and any functions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Employment."] I am dealing with employment. Where the Churches are employing teachers, they are exercising a public function under statute passed by the House. That goes back to the Board of Education in the 1830s, when Parliament started to use the Churches as agents of state education.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. Straw: I have given way to the right hon. Lady three times. If she will bear with me, I hope to explain the position—in the main, if not wholly, to her satisfaction.
We recognise that Church concerns remain, notwithstanding the care we took in framing the Bill to satisfy ourselves that it did not affect the private functions


of the Churches. There are concerns about religious doctrines and practices having to give way to convention rights and about staffing issues in Church schools.
The provisions that were inserted in the Bill on Third Reading in another place represent an attempt to reassure the Churches about its impact. I understand their intention, but they give rise to considerable difficulties. They raise the prospect of some actions being protected by the provisions that certainly ought to be amenable to correction on human rights grounds. As a result—this is the conundrum that those amendments pose—the acts in question might themselves be found in Strasbourg to have violated the convention, but would be incapable of correction by means of a better and domestic remedy.
The amendments made in another place carry a risk of violating the convention in their own right. It really would be an oddity if the Bill incorporating the convention on human rights was itself outwith that convention. That is particularly relevant to the amended clause 2, which accords one convention right, article 9, automatic priority over all others, whatever the circumstances.
There are other difficulties: both the amended clause 2 and clause 7 would discriminate between principal religious traditions and others, which would be unfair to minority religions, and would drag the courts into considering doctrinal issues.
The amended clause 6, which is aimed at the Church of Scotland, would also be likely to produce legal uncertainty in relation to the courts of the Church of England. The amended clause 7 deals with matters more properly addressed in the School Standards and Framework Bill. We have concluded that the provisions cannot properly remain in the Bill, and that is why Government amendments Nos. 137A, 138, 137, 41 and 44 were tabled to remove them.
Although we cannot accept the amendments made in the House of Lords, we think that we can meet Church concerns by other routes, without violating the convention or compromising the integrity of the Bill.
One point among many that impressed me in my discussions with Church representatives was that almost everyone who visited me and Lord Williams of Mostyn said that they accepted the principle of the convention. Many said that they wished the Bill to be incorporated. That is the formal position of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. It is also the stated position of the Church of Scotland; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will go into more detail.
Among other matters, the Churches were seriously concerned that, whatever protection there was in the merits of the Bill, the incorporation of the convention might encourage vexatious litigation against them. I accept that. It may encourage vexatious litigation against the Government. We will have to meet that in the initial stages, and we intend to do so.
The Government at least have paid lawyers. It is part of our job in introducing such a Bill; we can hardly complain. It is plain that congregations do not put their money on the plate on a Sunday principally to ensure that lawyers are paid to fund unnecessary actions against them. For that reason and others, I thought that we should go as

far as we possibly could to make it clear in the Bill that the Churches were to have protection consistent with the convention.

Mr. Hogg: If the right hon. Gentleman finds this question difficult to answer now, I will understand if he wants to answer it later. He has made it plain that nothing in the Bill compels the Church to marry, for example, divorced couples; or, if our primary legislation permitted it, persons of the same sex. As he fairly said, in those circumstances a civil marriage is available, which is sufficient for the convention.
Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman means exactly what he says—I am sure he does—I am not clear why he wants to remove clause 7(8), which provides protection for the Church in the context of marriage, and which would be removed by Government amendment No. 44. It is a big amendment that takes quite a lot else out as well, but I think that clause 7(8) does no more than enshrine the protection that he says the Churches have, under his understanding of the law.

Mr. Straw: Having had notice of that question, I shall seek later to provide the right hon. and learned Gentleman with details of why we found clause 7(8) unacceptable. We considered this carefully. I do not expect all hon. Members to accept everything we have done, but we believe that new clause 9 deals with the anxieties raised by the Churches, without getting us into the impossible situation of risking having parts of what will become the Act that are outwith the convention.

Mr. James Wallace: In proposing the deletion of parts of clause 6, the right hon. Gentleman explained that what relates to the courts of the Church of Scotland could cause uncertainty with regard to the courts of the Church of England. It seems odd to clear that uncertainty up by possibly creating one for the courts of the Church of Scotland. Is he satisfied that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Church of Scotland in matters spiritual under the Church of Scotland Act 1921 remains unaffected by the sum total of deletions and additions?

Mr. Straw: Having been pupilled to a lawyer expert in English ecclesiastical law, I know that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I do not profess any expertise in the law relating to the Church of Scotland, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is here. He is a Scots lawyer, and I defer to him on this, as I do on almost everything. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will wait, he will have all explained by my right hon. Friend.
The purpose of new clause 9, which stands in my name and—just mine, as it turns out. [Laughter.] One develops an autopilot from 17 years on the Opposition Front Bench. The new clauses that I moved, with little hope of getting them through, always stood in my name and those of several colleagues. I see that, because I am "Mr. Secretary Straw", I am the only person who adorns the new clause.
New clause 9 would come into play in any case in which a court's determination of any question arising out of the Bill might affect the exercise by a religious organisation of the convention right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In such a case, it provides for the court to have particular regard—not


just to have regard, going back to the earlier debate, but to have particular regard—to the importance of that right. Its purpose is not to exempt Churches and other religious organisations from the scope of the Bill—they have not sought that—any more than from that of the convention. It is to reassure them against the Bill being used to intrude upon genuinely religious beliefs or practices based on their beliefs. I emphasise the word "practices", as well as "beliefs".
There is ample reassurance available on this point from convention jurisprudence. Apart from stating the importance of the courts having due regard to article 9, new clause 9 is designed to bring out the point that article 9 rights attach not only to individuals but to the Churches. The idea that convention rights typically attach only to individuals and not the Churches caused considerable anxiety. I understood that, and that is why the new clause has been phrased so that the Churches have its protection as well as individuals.
There is convention jurisprudence to the effect that a Church body or other association with religious objectives is capable of possessing and exercising the rights in article 9 as a representative of its members. The new clause will emphasise that point to our courts. The intention is to focus the courts' attention in any proceedings on the view generally held by the Church in question, and on its interest in protecting the integrity of the common faith of its members against attack, whether by outsiders or by individual dissidents. That is a significant protection.
The Committee will note that the new clause refers to the exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion by a "religious organisation", but leaves that expression undefined. Some hon. Members may wonder why we describe Churches in that way. The answer is partly that no definition is readily available, at home or in Strasbourg.
We considered the issue with great care, and took the advice of parliamentary counsel. I have already referred to the difficulty arising from this point in the amendments made in another place in discriminating between some religions and others. We are seeking to reflect precisely the Strasbourg case law. The convention institutions have not offered a definition, but we are confident that the term "religious organisation" is recognisable in terms of the convention.

Mrs. May: I share the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and others about the Bill's impact on Churches. Will the Home Secretary reflect on the definition of religious organisations, and consider whether, by drawing that definition so widely, he risks including within it organisations and sects that would claim to have a religious aspect but whose activities most hon. Members would not regard as worthy of their support? I ask him to think carefully on that.

Mr. Straw: We have thought about that. The hon. Lady raises an important point about drafting. If I may, I will answer her when I or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland winds up.
The key concept that we are talking about is organisations with religious objectives. It may be helpful if I comment at this point on new clause 12. That is very similar to, and is clearly built upon, Government new

clause 9, but it inserts a reference to charities with religious foundations as well as what we have called "religious organisations". The intention is no doubt to achieve the same effect in relation to religious charities as in relation to Churches themselves. Although we recognise the intention of new clause 12, I propose that it is both unnecessary and unwise.
One of the advantages of Government new clause 9 is that it is flexible enough to cover cases involving religious charities where Church issues form a backdrop to the case. I say this because it applies to a court's determination of any question arising under the Human Rights Bill that might affect the exercise by a religious organisation of the rights guaranteed by article 9. It is therefore not tied to circumstances in which a religious organisation is directly involved, as a body, in the court proceedings.
If a case is brought against a charity, and the charity can show that what it is doing is to maintain and practise the religious beliefs which it shares with its parent Church, we consider that new clause 9 would come into play so as to ensure that due consideration was given to those beliefs.
The difficulty with a specific reference to religious charities, as new clause 12 would provide, is, first, that the article 9 rights attach more naturally to Churches themselves, at least in the first instance, than to other bodies. The benefit to charities and so on is indirect.
Secondly, however—this is one of the ways in which innocently phrased amendments can sometimes have the reverse effect of that intended—by drawing attention to religious charities in this way, new clause 12 might have the undesirable effect of excluding from the scope of new clause 9 other organisations supported by a Church, such as governing bodies of Church schools, or adoption agencies.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: In a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
The Government new clause will not provide absolute protection for Churches or other religious organisations as against any claim that might possibly be made against them.

Mr. Clappison: That is true.

Mr. Straw: Of course. We could not possibly do that without violating the convention or undermining the objects of the Bill. There has never been any dubiety about that, but the new clause will send a clear signal to the courts that they must pay due regard to the rights guaranteed by article 9, including, where relevant, the right of a Church to act in accordance with religious belief.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: No. I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson).

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am trying to follow the Home Secretary's line of thought, but I am finding it a


touch inconsistent. A few moments ago, he said that it was important to define which religious bodies would benefit. A religious charity, being governed so strictly by the charities legislation, would have a close definition. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from someone who worked for a religious charity before entering the House that a great deal of good work is carried out by such charities that may not be strictly religious, but which makes it vital that those charities are able to employ people of religious thought?

Mr. Straw: Nothing in the Bill applies to any organisation unless the organisation is a public body—charities are not of themselves public bodies—so what the hon. Gentleman describes would be outwith the Bill in any event. Provided the employment practices of a charity came within the general law—nothing to do with the convention—the Bill would have no effect.
The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that a charity may have a religious objective, but also may have other objectives that are not religious. We believe that we deal with the anxiety that has been raised in the manner that I have described.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: rose—

Mr. Leigh: rose—

Mr. Straw: I will give way to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), and then to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh); then I shall make some progress.

Mr. Maclennan: For the avoidance of doubt, I want to ask the Home Secretary about the wording of new clause 9, which I welcome, but which clearly refers in its own language to the provisions of article 9. I assume that he does not seek to give a priori priority to article 9 over other provisions of the convention that are equally applicable, and would also have to be considered by the court if issues touched by the new clause were raised.

Mr. Straw: The difficulty with the amendments that are now contained in the Bill is that they give absolute precedence to article 9 over all other convention rights. It is our judgment, and I do not think that there is a great deal of argument about it, that that would put the Bill outwith the convention. New clause 9 seeks to do exactly what it says. The language is straightforward. It gives particular regard to the importance of convention 9 rights, but it applies, as I have explained, to the exercise of those rights by a religious organisation or its members collectively. That is an important protection in addition to the Churches as bodies.

Mr. Leigh: The Home Secretary has referred in some detail to new clause 12, which I tabled. He claimed that, although the hon. Member who tabled new clause 12 might have done so innocently, it would have the opposite effect to what he intended. I assure him that I did table it innocently, and that I did not intend it to have the opposite effect to what I intended. He claimed that it would have the opposite effect because, if charities were singled out,

people might well have an excuse to attack other organisations. If that is true, why is he singling out schools in his own amendment?
My legal advice is that the exceptions to human rights legislation are interpreted very narrowly by the courts. Only organisations of which the primary purpose is the advancement of religion will be classed as religious organisations, so charities might well be pursued under the convention.

Mr. Straw: The reason why we have "singled out" schools is that local authority schools or those funded by local authorities are public bodies. I come back to the wisdom of the definition of a public authority contained in clause 6, which is designed to ensure that the convention applies only to public authorities or bodies performing the functions of a public authority, and in that capacity alone. Charities per se are not public bodies.

Mr. Julian Brazier: On that very point, what about adoption agencies, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred earlier, and children's homes?

Mr. Straw: That is exactly the point that I was making. An adoption agency may not be a charity. Some are, and some are not. But an adoption agency may be supported by a Church. Of course I accept that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) did not set out to draft an amendment that was perverse. However, having spent 18 years on the Opposition Benches, I can say that, however much wisdom one has in drafting amendments, occasionally one cannot compete with the wisdom of parliamentary counsel. I do not claim that wisdom, but at least I have the benefit of his advice. An adoption agency may not be a charity. The ironic and perverse effect of new clause 12 might be inadvertently to exclude an adoption agency supported by a Church if it was not a charity. We believe that our new clause would include the protection that we are providing.
May I make progress, and deal with Church schools? I have given way considerably, as hon. Members will recognise. We have considered carefully how we can respond to concerns about staffing issues in Church schools in the context of the School Standards and Framework Bill. We have tabled an amendment to that Bill to provide, in relation to voluntary aided schools, that regard may be had, in connection with the termination of the employment of any teacher at the school, to any conduct on his part which is incompatible with the precepts, or with the upholding of the tenets, of the religion or religious denomination in question.
We are also preparing an amendment to provide, in relation to foundation or voluntary controlled schools with a religious character, that, in appointing a head teacher at such a school, regard may be had to his ability and fitness to preserve and develop the religious character of the school. Those amendments are designed to produce the same effect as amendments to the School Standards and Framework Bill already tabled by the Bishop of Ripon.
We have accordingly made every effort to try to meet Church concerns within the framework of the United Kingdom's convention obligations. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will understand that, because of the diverse nature of representations made by the Churches, and because of their own diverse nature,


we were not in a position where we were negotiating with the Churches—frankly, that would have been impossible—but we did try to take on board their concerns.
I should like to thank the Churches and Baroness Young for what they have said about the amendments. In The Daily Telegraph of 19 May, Baroness Young is reported as saying that these changes
will give assurance to people of all denominations that, should there be litigation under this Bill, the courts must pay particular regard to the special position of churches and religious schools.
She is entirely right to say that.
8 pm
The Cardinal Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church, Basil Hume, wrote to me to say, first, that he wanted to make it clear that he was in favour of the Bill, which seeks to incorporate the convention into United Kingdom law. He then spelled out the anxieties that had arisen, and said that he was grateful to me and to my officials for the way in which we had listened and responded to those concerns. He went on:
I am delighted that the Government has agreed to move an amendment to the School Standards and Framework Bill. This wholly meets the Catholic Church's concerns about its right to employ in voluntary aided church schools teachers who believe in and act out the Christian, and in our case Catholic, faith in their lives.
I also welcome the fact that the Government has moved an amendment to the Human Rights Bill in order to meet the more general anxiety we have expressed. I recognise the difficulty of framing an amendment in a way which is consistent with the Convention. I have sought the best legal advice and my initial assessment is that the amendment in the form tabled by the Government may be the best that can reasonably be achieved to reinforce the protection given by the Convention to the churches and other faiths under Article 9.
For the sake of completeness, I should tell the hon. Member for Gainsborough that the Cardinal Archbishop also writes:
I have some hesitations, however, especially over the phrase 'religious organisation' as it is undefined and could be ambiguous.
I hope that I have clarified that point. He continues:
I very much hope that, in introducing the amendment in the House, you will make clear exactly what its intended effect is. It would also be helpful if you would publicly confirm that for the purposes of this Bill the Catholic Church is not a 'public authority' except when, as you put in your letter, the church is standing 'in place of the state'.
I confirmed that earlier, and I confirm it again.
I also received a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Anglican Church, who says:
The proposed new clause does not provide the firm guarantee of the Churches' continued doctrinal independence which we have sought, and you will appreciate that not all Church members will therefore be satisfied with it.
Nonetheless, I am grateful both for the new clause and for the proposed amendments to both the Human Rights Bill and the School Standards and Framework Bill which, together with the assurances given by the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords and the other amendments already made in response to the concerns of the churches, I believe constitute a significant improvement.
For the present may I repeat my gratitude for the efforts you have made in response to the concerns expressed to you by myself and other Church leaders.
Having put those points on the record, let me deal briefly with the other amendments in the group. As we shall be inviting the Committee to remove the provisions

inserted by another place, we naturally cannot accept amendments that would amend those provisions. Accordingly, we cannot accept amendment No. 8 to clause 2, or amendments Nos. 55, 57, 113, 114, 115 and 116 to clause 7.
Nor can we accept amendments that would extend the principle on which the provisions inserted by another place were based. For that reason, we cannot accept amendment No. 40, which is concerned with appointments to governing bodies and admissions policies at Church schools. If there is any problem in those areas in connection with the convention rights—I am not aware of any reason why there should be—the right place to deal with it is in specific legislation on education rather than in the Human Rights Bill.
We cannot accept amendment No. 56, which builds on clause 7(8), by providing that nothing in the Bill makes it unlawful for persons acting on behalf of a Christian or other principal religious tradition represented in the United Kingdom to refuse to carry out certain acts, such as administer the sacrament, if they are contrary to their religious doctrines or convictions. As I have explained, we do not believe that the Bill would require Churches to act against their conscience for one moment, and new clause 9 will reinforce that.
The remaining amendments in the group take a different approach to the issue of the impact of the Bill on Churches and other religious organisations. For reasons that I have explained and I which hope the Committee will accept, we find those amendments unacceptable.
Amendment No. 100 would operate on clause 6(3) so as to provide that a 'public authority' does not include the persons listed in what would be new schedule 1. Those are priests, ministers and other officials of a Church, religious denomination, mosque, synagogue or temple; persons exercising functions under the authority or on behalf of their membership; and persons exercising functions in connection with the ecclesiastical courts of the Church of England—with which, for a brief period in my career, I was all too familiar.

Mr. Hogg: I do not want to take the Home Secretary out of his sequence, because I realise how tiresome that can be, but is he going to tell us why, in Government amendment No. 44, he is seeking to remove from the Bill the provisions set out in clause 7(8) and (9)? I understand that he accepts those provisions in principle, but he is none the less removing them from the Bill. Is that for drafting reasons, or because of some other consideration which I have not yet fathomed?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention, and I shall deal with clause 7(8). I shall come back to him if he is not satisfied with my answer on that or on clause 7(9).
The reason that we seek to remove clause 7(8) is that, in our judgment, the way in which it is drafted discriminates between principal religious traditions and others, which is unfair to minority religions. It would draw the courts into consideration of doctrinal matters, which is the last thing anyone wants.
We also believe that it is in the wrong place: specific concerns about the conduct of marriages are properly addressed in marriage legislation, not in a Bill of general


application such as the one before the Committee. When an equivalent point was raised about the position of Church schools, I advised the Bishop of Ripon that the best place to address that was in amendments to the School Standards and Framework Bill. We then facilitated the tabling of amendments, and we have ended up with better legislation than was originally intended.
Amendment No. 90 removes references to Measures of the Church Assembly and Measures of the General Synod of the Church of England from the definition of primary legislation in clause 21. The effect would be to leave the courts with no indication of whether those were to be treated as primary or subordinate legislation for the purposes of the Bill. The courts need to know that, because it affects what they will be able to do if such Measures are considered to be incompatible with convention rights.
The Measures are to be treated as primary legislation because, under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, with which right hon. and hon. Members will be instantly familiar, Measures have the force and effect of an Act of Parliament once they receive Royal Assent. The Church by law established, of which I am an active member, is in a different position from any other Church, and, as long as it is established, there are things that go with that territory which cannot be avoided.
We amended the Bill in another place to ensure that such Measures, if declared incompatible by the courts, could not be amended by the Government under the remedial order procedure. The response we had from the Church of England at that time demonstrated its satisfaction on that point, and I am not aware of any remaining concern about the application of the Bill to Church Measures.
I have spoken at some length, but the impact of the Bill on the Churches is an extremely important issue, and I wanted to explain fully the conclusions we had reached. I said on Second Reading that I recognised the concerns that had been expressed, and that I would listen to what was said. Not only have I listened, but I have sought to act, and to go as far as we believe we can within the convention to meet those concerns.
I commend amendments Nos. 41, 44, 137, 137A and 138 and new clause 9 to the Committee. I hope that, in light of the explanations that I have offered, Hon. Members who tabled the other amendments in the group will seek leave to withdraw them.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I start by declaring an interest. I am a Christian, and have been in continuous Church membership for about 40 years. Happily, that does not make me even remotely unique in the House or on either side of the House, but it does mean that I approach this subject with a bias. I approach it with a bias in determining that the Bill should not impinge or intrude on the beliefs and practices of Churches and religious organisations in a way that would be incompatible with their historic traditions and formularies.
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for the courtesy that he has shown to myself and others. On Second Reading, we urged him to consult, and he did so. He and I have had many conversations, so I place on the record my appreciation of that fact, and my certainty that he was right to consult.
His approach contrasts sharply with the line that the Lord Chancellor took in another place, where he told the Lords that it never occurred to anyone in the Government that the Churches would have any particular difficulty in playing their proper part in the enforcement of human rights in Britain. That was either an expression of considerable arrogance on his part, reflecting a lack of knowledge of Church practice and belief, or an indication of an unwillingness to contemplate that genuine concerns might be raised by the Bill, which the Government would need to address. By his words, he sucked the Home Secretary into that arrogant view, but I want to make it clear that that has not been my perception of the Home Secretary in his dealings on the matter.
The imputation that the Churches were trying to wriggle out of their human rights responsibilities is indefensible. A press release issued by the communications unit of the General Synod of the Church of England on 9 March, which covers the meeting that took place between the Home Secretary and representatives of the Church of England, the free Churches and the Roman Catholic Church, says:
All the churches made clear their warm welcome for the main thrust of the Bill, which enables the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights to be directly enforced in the UK courts.
In the view of the churches, however, a problem may arise for them because the Government has chosen in clause 6 of the Bill to give a wide definition of 'public authority' which will include the churches. No other European country has done this and the churches are advised that this could be a source of real difficulty, in particular because it would allow the UK courts into uncharted areas where there are no precedents in Strasbourg.
I shall return to that point.
There is no suggestion, therefore, that the Churches do not wish to support the general thrust of the Bill, and it is unacceptable to try to suggest—as the Lord Chancellor did—that the fact that they have legitimate concerns, which have blossomed since he made those ill-advised comments, means that they oppose the Bill generally.
I could take much of the Committee's time—I am sure that it would be put to good use, although I hope that I would not incur your ire if I did so, Mr. Martin—repeating many reflections of the unease and concern of the Church. The Catholic Times of 15 March and 12 April; The Church of England Newspaper of 9 April; a letter to The Times from leading members of the General Synod of the Church of England, supported by at least 50 other Synod members, of 5 February 1998; and very many other articles and letters reflect such concern. As we debate this issue tonight, we are discussing not something in the margin of the religious life and activity of this nation, but a subject of general concern.
8.15 pm
I believe that the Bishop of Ripon—whom the Home Secretary mentioned—was the first to bring out the vexatious litigation point to which the Home Secretary referred. He said:
We are aware that there are hostile, anti-religious groups which would be only too glad of an opportunity to test in the courts the actions of religious bodies and people acting in accordance with their beliefs and convictions.
The Church of England, and I suppose other Churches, have already had considerable experience of litigation which they have resisted, but it is costly in terms of money and energy. It is likely


that there will be groups which will be only too happy to take Churches to the British courts to prove a point. It will be costly for those who have to resist such actions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 1998; Vol. 585, c. 774.]
Therefore, tonight we are discussing not only belief and practice, but the more mundane but equally important issues of vexatious litigation, cost and a permanent sense of Churches and religious bodies under pressure to conform to standards, belief patterns and moral judgments which, historically and theologically, they do not accept or believe.
When, on 15 May, the Home Secretary wrote me a letter, which he has already mentioned, he said—I am not trying to create a wrong impression by reading only a short extract; I am merely trying to save time—
Most of the things that churches do are, in the legal context and in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, essentially private in nature, and would not be affected by the Bill. Where the churches stand in place of the State, however, we think it is right in principle that people should be able to raise Convention points in respect of their actions on the same basis as they will be able to do in respect of the actions of other 'public authorities'—however rarely the occasion may arise.
The Home Secretary defined Churches in that paragraph as standing
in place of the State".
He used that definition at the start of his speech. If that is the definition, his speech has—with one proviso, to which I shall come later—a logical coherence. The problem is that that is not how the Bill defines those issues. As the Lord Chancellor pointed out, the Bill defines public authorities in the context of their functions—not standing
in place of the State",
but in the context of the activities that they undertake and the power that they discharge.
That appears to me an important point. I return to the intervention that I made on the Home Secretary. At the heart of our problem with the Bill—I shall expand on this shortly—is the Government's unwillingness to translate their own beliefs into unambiguous language, so that everyone understands exactly where they stand.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) put his finger right on the spot. When asked about new clause 9, the Home Secretary was caught in a cleft stick or, to change the metaphor, between a rock and hard place. He had used new clause 9 to persuade the cardinal and the archbishop that that is the sort of thing that they want from the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that new clause 9 simply reflects article 9 and cannot be given the interpretation of particular regard that the cardinal and archbishop would wish to give them the certainty that they have been seeking for some months, because to do that would go against the grain of the Bill. The Home Secretary was at least honest and open in responding to that good intervention.
We have an understanding that Churches and religious organisations, as well as matters of belief and practice, are involved in education. The Home Secretary made it clear that the education aspects will be dealt with in another piece of legislation, so it would be appropriate to leave them for another Committee to deal with rather than deal with them tonight. However, I mention them if only to recognise the importance that we attach to them.
The Churches and religious organisations provide homes for people, caring services and charitable functions, and most people—but apparently not new Labour—would recognise that those are not necessarily, or by definition, state functions. Registering a marriage is a state function, but marrying people in the eyes of God is not. We are left wondering why the Home Secretary believes that a secular court should be charged with deciding what constitutes a public or private authority function, and whether in law, and in Strasbourg law, there is any difference between the two.
I keep using the word "function" because it is the only defining modus operandi that the Lord Chancellor used, to which the Home Secretary has not added in his contribution this evening, and because, despite all our probings, the Government will not define a public authority. It is unusual for Governments to bring forward legislation, particularly legislation of major significance, and leave undefined one of its central issues.
The Home Secretary accused me of issuing a truism. I plead guilty. The right hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and I am not. I am just a humble scientist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] That evokes the usual patronising response from lawyers. However, I understand that, while the courts interpret what we say, it is usually hugely to the courts' advantage if we say what we mean before we ask the courts to interpret it. The charge against the Government in this regard is that they will not say what they mean. They are, in effect, washing their hands of the issue, so that the courts can take any opprobrium that might flow from the legislation. I agree that plenty of opprobrium will flow from the amendment.
The White Paper made constant references to the position of public authorities, citing central and local government and others exercising similar executive powers, among which were the police, immigration officers, prisons, courts, tribunals and privatised utilities that exercise public functions, and to the need for the exercise of those powers in a way that was compatible with the convention.
Interestingly, in the White Paper, the examples of such public authorities did not include Churches, religious organisations or religious charities. The underlying legislative intention was, as stated, in no way related to such bodies. The Bill was not intended to encroach on the religious freedom that Churches have hitherto enjoyed, yet, because of the obscurity of the definition of a public authority in clause 6(3), which includes
any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature",
but not when a particular act of that person is, by its nature, private, it is now recognised that such bodies may be caught by the Bill for certain of their activities. The Lord Chancellor said that Churches, hospices, schools and charities that work with the homeless may all exercise public functions.
The European convention was intended to protect the individual against the state. Clause 6 makes it possible for Churches and religious organisations to be deemed part of the state—a public authority—when they carry out public functions. But I am advised that what the Home Secretary told us was simply not the case; that there is no jurisprudence from the Strasbourg court on public authorities claiming an article 9 defence. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Secretary of State for Scotland addresses that specific point when he replies.
The Secretary of State for Scotland clearly was not listening, so I shall repeat that. I have been advised that there is no jurisprudence from the Strasbourg court on public authorities claiming an article 9 defence.

Mr. Straw: We were listening. We were looking perplexed because we did not follow the point, but we were listening. It was because we were listening that we could not follow the point. What I was trying to work out with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was how article 9 is directly relevant to the definition of a public authority. One must first decide whether the convention rights attach to a body by deciding whether it is a public authority. If it is a public authority as defined, all the convention rights as circumscribed by the Bill will apply. If it is not a public authority, they will not. I am sorry, but I am not following the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The Home Secretary made it clear that Churches or religious organisations had no need to worry about being a public authority, because they could have protection in terms of Strasbourg jurisprudence and the primacy of UK law.
I have been advised that that is not the case in terms of an article 9 defence for public authorities in the context of Strasbourg jurisprudence. Because there is a difference of opinion and advice between us, I was asking the Secretary of State for Scotland to address that point when he replies.

Mr. Leigh: It is important that we deal with the Home Secretary's intervention, because he may have misunderstood what his officials have told him. The Home Office has repeatedly made it clear in recent weeks that it is precisely the right to freedom in article 9 that would protect the Churches. The Home Secretary is now trying to wriggle away from that. I do not see what point he is trying to make.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am encouraged that my argument was understood by him, if not by the Home Secretary. I look forward to hearing what the Secretary of State for Scotland says in his response.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The right hon. Gentleman referred to Strasbourg jurisprudence and decisions. The court in Strasbourg heard a case taken by an atheist against the Salvation Army in Holland, on the ground that the Salvation Army had discriminated against him because he was not a Christian. Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of the case, and does he know the outcome? The court's decision would provide guidance.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right. After I deal with the philosophical problem, I shall discuss various practical examples. The system of belief and practice that underlies the issue is of fundamental importance—my hon. Friend, as a Presbyterian minister, would certainly accept that—but the practical application is also important. I shall shortly come to the point that he makes.
When the Secretary of State for Scotland sums up, will he comment on the acceptance by the European Commission of Human Rights in the recent case of Thomas Tyler, when the commission considered that
the applicant's functions as a priest
of the Church of England
are more in the nature of public service than they are of private professional practice."?
That is a stunning statement by the European Commission. The Home Secretary spent a considerable part of his speech telling us that there was a clear distinction between the public and the private, with respect to the Church and the discharge of its functions. He said that virtually everything that the Church did was private and would therefore not be covered by the Bill, and that only a little bit of what the Church did was public, when it was standing in place of the state. Yet the European Commission said exactly the opposite in that recent case—I believe that it was in 1994—when it stated that the priest's functions are
more in the nature of public service".
We need to hear from the Secretary of State for Scotland how the Government reconcile the European Commission view with what the Home Secretary has just told the Committee.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): rose—

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Let me make progress. We shall return to the matter.
When, on Second Reading, we asked the Government to look again at the issue, they had four options for change. They could have excluded Churches and religious organisations entirely. That was the strongest option, and the Government rejected it. They could have given Churches an absolute defence. That was the next strongest option, but they rejected it. They could have introduced legislation that catered for specific cases, but they rejected that option. They could have issued broad principles to guide the Church when religious liberties are involved. That was the weakest of the four options, and, interestingly, the one that the Government chose. We want to know why.
The junior Home Office Minister in another place declared that Baroness Young's amendment, which the Government now want to delete, could be incompatible with the convention. The Home Secretary made the same point this evening. How would it be incompatible in this country, yet it is not incompatible in Germany?
The German constitution is hierarchically superior to the European convention on human rights and includes a general guarantee of freedom of religion. The main religious denominations in Germany have public law status, which allows them, among other things, to raise taxes. They also have entrenched religious freedoms. All that is possible in a country that subscribes to the convention, but the Home Secretary tells us that it is impossible in this country, which equally subscribes to the convention.
I shall make one final attempt to persuade the Home Secretary to change his mind on the matter and to deal head on with the Opposition's concerns. Freedom of religion necessarily raises greater issues than other


freedoms, because the granting of such freedom, if it is to mean anything at all, means allowing liberty to a group of people to arrange their structures and organise their activities in accordance with their deeply held beliefs. Such a group cannot operate in freedom if it is bound to include those who do not share its beliefs or conform to its standards of behaviour. Moreover, the nature of the beliefs held will usually affect every aspect of life, including the exercise of functions of a public nature.
Major religious groupings, and in particular Christian Churches or organisations in the UK, have not been limited to private activities. Historically, they have met vital public needs as part of their mission, and they consider themselves bound to continue to do so. Many Christian organisations meet social needs today which, in the absence of those organisations, the Government would feel bound to meet by other means.
Although many such activities have historically benefited non-adherents to the Christian faith as much as adherents, freedom of religion necessarily involves distinguishing between those who are adherents and those who are not, for the purpose of engaging those who work for the body in question, and in some circumstances to identify the beneficiaries, as some bodies may wish to benefit the adherents exclusively, or at least in priority to non-adherents—for example, religious schools.
There is an inevitable conflict between the freedom of the individual, set out in articles 8 to 12, and as elaborated by article 14 and its prohibition of any discrimination in the enjoyment of such individual rights on the ground of religion, and the freedom of others in a group to manifest their religion or beliefs in practice and observance, in accordance with article 9.
That conflict must be resolved in favour of the group, if there is to be freedom of religion. A group of believers must be free to include only those who share the same beliefs and standards of behaviour, and therefore of necessity to exclude those who do not, whether or not that is labelled discriminatory.
Historically, the secular courts have not interfered with such matters, because they involve issues on which those courts are not competent to adjudicate. Ecclesiastical courts exercise jurisdiction for the established Churches, while other historic Christian denominations or non-Christian religions have been permitted to regulate themselves according to their own patterns of belief and behaviour.
That position should be maintained, in the absence of a breach of the criminal law. Secular courts, especially in an increasingly secular society, should not attempt to judge spiritual issues, nor seek to impose a value system that compels those who, for example, hold a Christian world view to treat others who do not as if they did, and in particular to accept them into their organisation, whether as leaders or employees in any capacity or for any purpose. The courts should not treat the beliefs and standards of a person as irrelevant when dealing with an organisation whose particular beliefs and standards are essential to its existence, whether or not that organisation is fulfilling a role that the Government might otherwise perform.
That seems to me to be an eminently deep and important illustration of the problem that lies at the heart of the Bill. I ask the Home Secretary once more to consider the implications of my remarks before he presses

the amendment, which, in the present circumstances, the Committee will approve—for that is the nature of this place—and opens a Pandora's box in the process. I am grateful to the barristers Messrs Cooke and Wales—who have written about this subject not only to me but to other hon. Members—for their insights and their erudition, upon which I have drawn heavily.
I come now to the more practical aspects of the legislation. People are concerned about the implications of the Bill. They are worried about the issue of gay marriages. They are concerned that Churches or religious organisations may be sued if, for example, the Anglicans refuse to have a woman as a bishop, the Muslims refuse to have a woman as an imam, the synagogue refuses to have a woman as an orthodox rabbi, or the Catholic Church refuses to have a woman as an ordained priest. They are not simple issues. I shall give some examples of possible litigation under the Bill.
Let us take the example of a Church school where the headmaster is required to be a practising member of the denomination. The headmaster leaves his wife for another woman who is a teacher at the school. He admits that, and is asked to leave. He then sues for unfair dismissal citing discrimination, article 14, on the ground of his private life, article 8, as part of his claim. He also claims religious discrimination, article 9, as he believes that it is not against his religion to behave in that way.

Mr. Grieve: I am following my right hon. Friend's argument closely, but I confess that I find the breach of article 9 difficult to understand. While I recognise that there is a potential conflict with articles 14 and 8, I cannot follow his argument regarding article 9. How can he argue that the headmaster's own religious beliefs were discriminated against in that example?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: As I made clear in my example, the man might believe that his behaviour was not incompatible with his religion, even though the school judged that it was.
Let me give another example. An atheist applies for a teaching job in a theological institute. His application is refused, so he sues the institute authorities on the ground of religious discrimination. I can inform the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) that that illustration is based on the facts of a case involving the Salvation Army Institute that is currently before the Dutch courts. I do not know the outcome of the case, but the hon. Gentleman referred to it earlier by way of intervention.

Mr. Peter Brooke: My intelligence is that the case has been settled in favour of the Salvation Army, but at very considerable expense.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
Let me give another example. What about the sale of pornography on Church-owned premises? Suppose the Church Commissioners own a shopping centre and they incorporate into their leases terms forbidding the sale of pornography on the premises. A newspaper vendor breaches those terms, and the commissioners seek a court order forcing the vendor to vacate the premises. In his defence, the vendor cites his right to freedom of


conscience and belief, article 9, and to freedom of expression, article 10, and the right not to be discriminated against for his opinions, article 14.
Let us take the example of a Muslim community centre that receives its funding from the local authority. The building is used for Muslim community events, religious services and religious instruction. A humanist group seeks to hire a room to conduct a public meeting but is refused. The group sues claiming discrimination, article 14, on freedom of conscience grounds, article 9, and its right to freedom of expression, article 10, and freedom of assembly, article 11.
Let us take another example of a Christian hospice that is committed to caring for the terminally ill and is completely opposed to euthanasia. It receives grant aid from the local authority. A pro-euthanasia group seeks to advertise its work and make a presentation to the hospice. The hospice refuses and the pro-euthanasia group sues, claiming breach of the right to freedom of conscience and belief, article 9.
Then there is adoption. Let us say that a religious-based adoption agency refuses to recommend a placement with a homosexual person. The agency is sued on the grounds that it is breaching articles 8 and 14. Many such examples could be cited, all of them flowing from the Bill, which the Home Secretary assures us will not have the consequences for belief and practice that manifestly it will.
8.45 pm
The Government have introduced new clause 9. As I said, it simply reflects article 9. In effect, it says to the courts, "When you are considering these issues of the European convention, you have to consider article 9. You have to give particular regard to it." However, as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, it is not necessary to give it the overwhelming priority that the Home Secretary is seeking to achieve by way of persuasion, but which is not in the Bill.
Our amendments Nos. 8, 100, 40, 90, 46, and 55 to 57 are all designed to strengthen the protective shield to Churches and religious organisations and their religiously related activities. Those amendments were put into the Bill in another place, and the Government wish them all to be removed. We do not support Government amendment No. 137A for the reasons that I have given, but the Government do.
I do not accuse the Government of mendacity or deliberately seeking to mislead. I merely accuse them of producing legislation that they then seek to persuade people to believe in on the ground that it meets their legitimate concerns when legally it does no such thing.
On 13 May, a number of leaders of Christian Churches and organisations, including the National Club, the chief executive of Tearfund, Shaftesbury Housing Group, the Evangelical Alliance, the Shaftesbury Society, the Church Pastoral-Aid Society, the Institute of Contemporary Christianity and a number of well-known churches in London wrote a letter to the Prime Minister. They sent him a copy of the document from which I have extensively quoted. They wrote:
We write to express our continuing concern about the probable impact of the Human Rights Bill upon the communities that we represent. We enclose a paper prepared for us by Leading Counsel which explains clearly how the Bill could well curb religious freedom and lead to costly litigation for churches and charities.

It continues:
The enclosed letter from the Home Office is typical of the arguments which have been used by many M.Ps to try to reassure us. But the letter fails to address the central issue, namely that if the Bill extends the scope of the Convention's application to churches and charities as public authorities, it may create situations where actions of those organisations in accordance with their historic Christian beliefs conflict with the Convention rights of other individuals. This conflict of rights would have to be settled by the courts at great expense. It would be quite wrong for the churches to have to bear this cost, let alone the risk of a secular Court deciding that Christian organisations are prohibited from acting in accordance with historic Christian doctrines and morals in the context of what may be held to be 'functions of a public nature' which they may perform. Christian churches and charities apply in their functions the Christian values which are essential to their very existence. It should be a matter of concern to the public and the Government to ensure that their actions, taken on the basis of historic Christian beliefs, are not held up to lengthy and costly scrutiny in the secular courts—to the detriment of the public good for which those organisations strive.
It is not our purpose to question the Government's intentions (indeed, we support the aim of the Bill) but rather to highlight the effect of the Bill on the churches and charities we represent.

Mr. Dewar: It might clarify what I shall say at the end of the debate if the right hon. Gentleman could explain to me the extension to which he is referring. The convention on human rights has been relevant to the Churches in this country since it was ratified here in 1953. The only change is the forum in which a case can be taken—that is, it can be taken directly in the domestic courts rather than in Strasbourg. The whole gravamen of the right hon. Gentleman's case appears to be that there has been some sort of new threat or extension. I genuinely do not know what difference there has been, other than the point about the forum. It seems to me that the threat—if there is one—has existed since 1953 and that it will not essentially change as a result of this legislation. Can he explain why I am wrong?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: That is clearly the Government's view—[Laughter.] It is clearly neither our view nor that of the Churches and religious organisations, because this legislation will open up opportunities for litigation and movement into areas of belief and practice.
If the Secretary of State for Scotland thinks that there is no problem with belief and practice, why does he not amend new clause 9, for example, to refer to freedom of thought, conscience, and religious practice and belief, as well as religion? The right hon. Gentleman has an easy remedy: if he thinks that we are wrong and that what he says is right, he can copper-bottom what he says by amending the provision, to remove the opportunity for Opposition Members or anyone else to make mischief, as he would see it, around the legislation. The fact that he will not do that—the Home Secretary has already told me that he will not—is precisely the cause of the concern that is being expressed.

Mr. Leigh: A direct answer can be given to the Secretary of State for Scotland. He claims that the convention has been around for many years, but the Bill does not simply incorporate the convention into UK law; it creates a new Bill of Rights, and judges will be able to go further than Strasbourg judges. Strasbourg judges are, by their very nature, conservative in social matters, and they normally use the "margin of appreciation" to exclude such cases. UK judges could go much further than


Strasbourg judges have gone in the past 30 years. That is the Churches' concern and the answer to the Secretary of State.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is encapsulated in the point that I have already made two or three times, so I shall not elaborate again. The Secretary of State for Scotland could assist the Committee by defining public authority and tabling amendments that remove any anxiety that might exist.
The letter to which I referred has not been answered by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor, to whom it was copied, but it contemporarily reflects the continuing legal, moral, Christian and spiritual concerns about this legislation in general, and the amendment in particular. For that reason, when we reach the end of the debate, we shall wish to divide on the Government amendment.

Mr. McNamara: I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). I confess that, if I felt that there was any risk of the terrible events that he suggested occurring as a result of this legislation, I would be running around my hon. Friends whipping them into the Lobby in support of his amendment. However, I do not agree that there is such a risk. To those who doubt that statement, may I say that I have a history—not only tonight but on other occasions—of whipping hon. Friends into Lobbies to vote against my party, so it is not an idle assertion. I take no pride in having had to do that, but it shows that Back Benchers are sometimes right and sometimes wrong about Governments.
I am concerned that the right hon. Gentleman's language might whip up fears among many people—fears about matters that are not in the Bill. When we forced him to give way to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, he did not explain why, suddenly, those fears have appeared when we have been bound to the convention, and cases have been going to Strasbourg for all that time. Such matters have hardly been raised in that particular way.
New clause 9, which has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, deals with those fears. It states:
If a court's determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively)"—
which presumably is the public profession of their worship and ritual—
of the Convention right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.
There will not be regard, but "particular regard". That provision is in the new clause and my right hon. Friend has stated his interpretation of a public organisation.
We should consider what is a public organisation and what is a sacrament. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire and other Conservative Members have got on to murky ground. Is the sacrament of matrimony two people agreeing to live together for life? Common theology is that that constitutes it. Two people making such a decision would live in a perfect state of grace—not necessarily over the brush—and in a proper way, from a Christian view of the nature of marriage.
The Church wants to protect the parties, so it says, "That is right, but the Church will be the witness of that function." The state says, "We have a duty in civil society to regulate people's relationships so that we have a degree of order. Therefore, if the Church exercises a public function—if it carries out something necessary for civil society—we shall lay down rules about a man and a woman, about forms and about witnesses." That is a civil society matter. The Church protects its position by holding a ceremony—generally, but not necessarily, in front of an ordained priest. For a Christian, however, the sacrament is when the two parties decide that they want to live together as man and wife.
For the life of me, I cannot think that anyone would litigate on any of those three causes, except to say that the form of the marriage was not valid in the eyes of the state, which would have a duty to intervene. The question whether a marriage was proper in the eyes of the Church would be for the Church to decide; it would not alter the position with regard to the state.
All sorts of problems are being built up, but they do not exist in practice. Churches carry out public functions, and the state has the right to examine the way in which they are carried out. Churches receive money for hospices, orphanages, reform hostels and schools. The state has a perfect right to ask whether taxpayers' money is being spent properly.
No one belonging to any Church organisation has any right to run away and start saying, "You can't interfere with my religious practice by telling me how I have to spend money that you, on behalf of the taxpayer, have contributed to my public function at that particular time." I do not think that any hon. Member would argue against the state's right in those circumstances. If that is true, why are we worried about the Secretary of State's new clause? There is no need whatever to do so.
9 pm
What has fascinated me about this debate is the way in which problems have been raised in relation to education, which the Government had said they would deal with. Because they defeated the case of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire, he said that he would refer to education matters on another occasion or in another way—except, of course, that, when the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was making her case, and the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), the former Secretary of State for National Heritage and Secretary of State for Health was jumping up and saying, "Are you going to have atheists appointed as head masters of Catholic junior primary schools?" or whatever it was, a special amendment was tabled in the House of Lords, which said that there should be control over the appointment of head teachers, deputy heads and senior appointments.
I read that, and I thought, "This is rubbish." Those people should be worried not about what the head teacher or deputy head are telling the kids, but about what a class teacher or specialist are telling a group of children, of whatever age, in class. In fact, the amendment that was passed in the upper House weakened the whole position that the Churches have had since 1902. It was a rubbish amendment, and that is why I felt it necessary to table my amendment—just in case the Secretary of State had a


brainstorm and felt, for one reason or another, that he might accept it. I wanted to make the point that it affected every teaching appointment.
What did the Secretary of State do? He met the cardinal archbishop and his representatives, and the Archbishop of Canterbury and his representatives. He came to the new clause 9 and then dealt with the amendment that had been tabled by Baroness Blackstone in another place, which meets all the points that have been raised by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire. He gave the example of someone who has an adulterous affair or has a divorce and gets remarried.
Let us take a position, for example, in a Catholic school. Baroness Blackstone's amendment to clause 59 of the School Standards and Framework Bill states:
If the school is a voluntary aided school—
(a) preference may be given, in connection with the appointment, remuneration or promotion of teachers at the school, to persons—

(i) whose religious opinions are in accordance with the tenets of the religion or religious denomination specified in relation to the school under section 66(4), or
(ii) who attend religious worship in accordance with those tenets, or
(iii) who give, or are willing to give, religious education at the school in accordance with those tenets".

That is the first appointment. That is great, but, in the example that we have been given, the head teacher has transgressed, so the clause goes on:
(b) regard may be had, in connection with the termination of the employment of any teacher at the school, to any conduct on his part which is incompatible with the precepts, or with the upholding of the tenets, of the religion or religious denomination so specified.
That is the strongest declaration ever in the history of the state for the preservation of the position of religious schools. It could not be stronger or better. Many of the remarks of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can be dealt with in a similar way.

Mr. Brazier: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I believe that he is right about the amendment on schools. Many Conservative Members are trying to point out that such safeguards should be extended to other religious organisations, particularly those that have even greater control over children, such as adoption agencies and orphanages, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Mr. McNamara: Let us go back to new clause 9, which says that particular regard must be given to
the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion".
We could produce a shopping list of who should be covered by that, but we would be bound to miss some. One of the amendments mentions charities, but many adoption agencies are not charities. Much of the work that will be protected by the new clause is not formally registered, because many such organisations are informal associations. Bodies such as the St. Vincent de Paul society and the Church of England men's fellowship would be protected by the new clause.
Those are important issues, going to the root of what many of us believe about our society and how we run our lives. I ask hon. Members not to be carried away by right-wing religious fundamentalists who do not want to see what is going on.

Mr. Brazier: That is unworthy.

Mr. McNamara: I have seen such people in operation. Some material that has come to me was misleading about the nature of the what the Government have said, and did not demonstrate a proper examination of new clause 9 and the amendments tabled in the other place, perhaps because of a lack of time. Some of the accusations that have been made are not justifiable, given the facts and the history of the exercise of the convention.

Mr. Grieve: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman on this difficult issue. He suggests that new clause 9 should be sufficient to define how the courts should approach a potential conflict in the convention. Is he satisfied that the wording of the new clause is sufficient? It emphasises only the first part of the sentence in article 9, rather than going through, not to the end—because some of it would not translate properly—but to the section towards the end that deals with the manifestation of religion and belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Mr. McNamara: The amendment tabled by Baroness Blackstone deals with teaching. New clause 9 covers observance and practice. Therefore, I come back to where I plan to finish—to assure my hon. Friend the Minister that I shall not be pressing my amendments, on the basic principle that I have already today had one good bite at the cherry, and I should not push my luck too far.
I also tell my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that I was very interested to hear that he will be explaining to the Committee what the Government will do on amendment No. 111, which was passed. I look forward to hearing the statement on an early occasion, and can think of no better way of marking the convention's 50th anniversary than for us to sign that protocol.

Mr. Maclennan: This has been an extremely interesting debate. I start from a position that is almost 180 deg removed from that expressed by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), as I did not come to consideration of the Bill with any anxiety that Churches would be threatened by it. Far from holding such a view, I believe that the Churches' position will be greatly strengthened by passage of the Bill. For the first time in our domestic law, specific protection will be given to them by a statute passed by the British Parliament, explicitly and in terms invoking the protections of religious freedom.
The entire jurisprudence of the European Commission, of the European Court of Human Rights and of countries that had comparable domestic legislation, such as the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany, has shown how those protections had been interpreted over 50 years, in a manner that leaned heavily towards protecting the institutional interests of Churches wherever those interests were called into question.
There is a long list of examples of attempts to claim that a fundamental right and freedom has been violated by a Church organisation. In Germany, for example, a doctor in a Roman Catholic Church hospital was dismissed because he believed in euthanasia, but his case failed in the courts. Similarly, doctors in hospitals run by the Roman Catholic Church have been dismissed because they favoured abortion in some circumstances. Many such examples have put beyond doubt in my mind how those matters were viewed by the courts in countries that for many years had been subscribing to the European convention on human rights and giving effect to its provisions in their domestic law.
I confess to having been quite astonished by some of the initial expressions of concern about the Bill by members of different Churches. Although it should be said that a variety of views have been expressed even within the Church of England on the weight to be given to those concerns, the concerns have nevertheless carried sufficient weight to inspire their Lordships substantially to amend the Bill—in ways that I thought were profoundly damaging to its coherence and integrity. Were the Bill to be passed in that form, the amendments would create great uncertainty in interpreting the Bill, not least in its definition of religion—which may itself be regarded as discriminatory by those who sought the Bill's subsequent protection, and who are perhaps not members of what would be categorised as one of the principal religions.
I believe that the Home Secretary has taken very seriously those concerns, consulted very widely and given us a very fair account of the outcome of the consultations. As he rightly said, he was not engaged in a negotiation, but he showed himself to be sensitive to the concerns of the Churches and has bent over backwards to accommodate those anxieties by producing new clause 9.
9.15 pm
We can certainly live with the new clause, and my right hon. Friends and I will support it, although in all honesty we doubt its absolute necessity. It is a belt and braces operation. If it makes the minds of those who think that they will be adversely affected any easier, I am perfectly happy that it should be accepted, although it will have a rather limited effect.
The position of the Church of Scotland is in some respects different and unique, for it is invoking a constitutional principle concerning the effect as it perceives it of the Church of Scotland Act 1921. I do not propose to develop the arguments. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will be successful in catching your eye, Sir Alan, to do so. I have been in dialogue with the Church and understand its concern, although I do not entirely share it. The Bill in its present form does not touch upon the exercise of the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church of Scotland, which I believe is what the 1921 Act is concerned with.
I welcome the fact that the Government have adopted and made their own a number of the amendments that I originally tabled. Article 9 of the convention guarantees the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and, most importantly, includes the right to manifest one's religion—a right that can be exercised in community with others, in public and within the circle of those who share

the same faith. It includes the right to try to convince others, for example, through teaching. That point was made clear in the Kokkinakis v. Greece judgment in 1993.
The protection given by article 9 extends to acts that are linked with an individual's religious beliefs or attitudes, and protects aspects of the practice of the religion or belief—for example, acts of worship or devotion.
Article 14 of the convention provides that all convention rights and freedoms are to be enjoyed without discrimination on the grounds, inter alia, of religion. So even the convention contains a belt and braces provision.
The adjustments to clause 2 in the other place were unnecessary. If enacted, they would risk confusion over whether religion was to be elevated above all other fundamental rights, which would depart from the scheme of the convention and be out of line with international standards.
Government amendment No. 41 would ensure that such courts and tribunals must have regard to fundamental rights. There is no need for the amendment, which was moved successfully in another place by Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, because a Church, rather than merely individuals, is also capable of exercising the rights contained in article 9.
According to the decisions of the court in Strasbourg, the rights of a Church are inseparable from the rights of its members. Even as a respondent party to a challenge under the Bill, religious bodies would, in all likelihood, be entitled to rely on article 9. That goes some way to meeting the concerns of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) about the Church as a public authority.
The Church of Scotland has claimed that the unamended Bill would disturb the constitutional settlement of 1921, but I do not believe that the spiritual courts of the Church of Scotland are public authorities. I am persuaded by the words of the Lord Advocate that, for the purpose of the Bill, they are not courts—their decisions could not be challenged using the convention rights. The constitutional position of the Church of Scotland, as I understand it, will be unaffected by the Bill, as the Bill has no authority in the spiritual matters on which the Church of Scotland's courts adjudicate. If he is successful in catching your eye, Sir Alan, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland will want to look more closely and carefully at those issues, which are giving rise to continuing concern in Scotland.
A number of hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, have spoken about marriage. Article 12 of the convention confers a right to marry, but it does not confer a right to marry in the Church of one's choice—or, for that matter, the temple, synagogue or mosque of one's choice. The conduct of a marriage ceremony by a priest or other religious person is, I believe, protected by article 9.
The fact that the link between the religious beliefs of a Church and its members is intimate and recognisable was upheld in the court in the case of Chappel v. United Kingdom. If, for example, a Church refused to marry a couple because one member of that couple was not a Christian, it would not have violated the couple's right to marry, as they would be entitled to a civil marriage. That applies to the traditional right to marriage between persons of the opposite biological sex, but it does not apply to same-sex couples. Even if Parliament were to


recognise unions of people of the same sex, the Churches would not have to recognise such unions, as that would infringe the collective rights of the Church under article 9.
It follows—if my reading of the cases is right—that nothing in the convention can be used to compel a person to conduct a marriage ceremony contrary to his religious beliefs, so I believe that the amendment tabled in another place by Lady Young was unnecessary—I am glad that that is now her view also.
Clause 7(9) and (10) deals with employment rights. No one can use the convention to claim a right to work for a particular religious or other body. In so far as those bodies are carrying out public functions—and are therefore public authorities—they would be in same position as the civil service, and no one has a right to a job with the civil service under the convention. The relevant case is Glasenapp and Kosiek v. Germany, which was decided in 1986. Consequently, no one could claim the right to work for a charity or a particular religious body, such as a Church or Church association.
The Lord Chancellor stressed in debates in the other place that there is no right of employment under the convention, so a Church or a charity could not infringe the convention by refusing to employ someone. In cases where a requirement of the job in some way limits the ability or right of the individual to exercise his religion or belief, his right to freedom of belief under article 9 is protected by his ability to leave his job—a number of cases have been decided in that way. The Government amendments to the School Standards and Framework Bill in another place have satisfied even the most fearful among us on that point.
The Government have bent over backwards to meet the concerns, and I think that they have done so successfully in respect of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, the Free Church and the Methodists, although a debate remains in relation to Scotland. We shall listen with great interest to what the Secretary of State for Scotland has to say on the matter, and decide whether it is necessary to return to that issue on Report.

Mr. Leigh: My new clause 12 and amendment No. 117 are designed to address the problems created for religious bodies by the legislation. The religious bodies with which I have had discussions are not seeking any new rights: they want merely to preserve their traditional religious freedoms. They do not want interference from secular courts and they are fearful that, unless the Bill is amended as I propose, those freedoms will be eroded. The Government will claim that that is a mistaken perception, but it is strongly held, and I know that the Government and the Home Secretary take such worries extremely seriously.
One's personal views on whether it is wise to incorporate the convention are irrelevant to this debate. Serious problems are caused by the ways in which the convention is incorporated into United Kingdom law by the Bill.
Following huge pressure from the Churches and a huge amount of interest in the religious press, the Home Secretary tabled new clause 9. My legal advice is that, despite his best efforts—and I know that he is sincere in his desire to protect the Churches—the new clause does

not go far enough, and that is why I tabled amendment No. 117 and new clause 12. I hope to tease out of the Government a response to these points.
Amendment No. 117 would require a court, in any conflict of rights, to give primacy to the article 9 right to religious freedom. New clause 12 is designed to correct new clause 9's failure adequately to protect religious charities. This relatively new area of concern has not hitherto received adequate attention, and must now be addressed.
I believe that the Home Secretary has acted wisely and correctly to protect the employment policies of Church schools, and I give him credit for that, but the Government need to listen to the genuine concerns about religious charities and, even if they reject amendment No. 117 and new clause 12, they should at least give cogent reasons and promise to bring in similar provisions in a future employment or charities Bill.
What are the problems created by the Bill? Let us consider the important matter of what the convention was intended to do. It was intended to bind Governments. It was designed to address the human rights records of Governments during the second world war, because Governments have the power to coerce. The convention's framers, after the second world war, did not in their wildest dreams imagine that it would or could ever be used against Churches. In the difficult days after the second world war, the framers of the convention would never have wanted it to be used to sue a local parish church, a Church school or a religious charity. That is the danger that we face.
Religious bodies are in a uniquely vulnerable position because they get involved in services to the community. In that sense, they are public bodies. They get involved in such services because of their faith, and they are compelled to carry them out in accordance with their faith; they have no latitude.
In incorporating the convention, I believe that the Government have gone wider and deeper than they ever needed to go: wider, because their definition of public authority in clause 6 includes bodies whose actions have never come to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg; and deeper, because the UK courts would be involved in religious and social policy issues when they should not be involved in such issues. In fairness to Strasbourg—I wish to be fair to it; that is my reputation in the House—it has wisely tended to leave these matters alone. That is the answer to the intervention of the Secretary of State for Scotland on my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary. Strasbourg has wisely left them alone because of the margin of appreciation. It rightly believes that such matters are best left to individual states.
9.30 pm
Most importantly, the Bill bites deeper than the convention, because it does not only incorporate the convention. The Secretary of State for Scotland did not reply to me; he thought that he was making a clever point against my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary. The Secretary of State was making the point that the convention has been around for 20 or 30 years, but that there have been no cases on these matters. That argument would be true if the Bill only incorporated the convention, but the gravamen of our case is that this is a new Bill of


Rights, based on the convention. United Kingdom judges can, and I believe will, go much further than the convention.
Unlike with the judges in Strasbourg, no principle of the margin of appreciation operates in UK courts. The judges in Strasbourg are fairly conservative in matters of social policy and religious freedom, but their judgments will not be binding on UK courts under clause 2. UK judges will have only to take account of the conservative Strasbourg judges. That is the answer to the intervention by the Secretary of State and an important point that should be answered in the Minister's reply.

Mr. Grieve: I appreciate my hon. Friend's points, which are valid and form one of the problems facing the Committee in considering the matter, but does not the Home Secretary's new clause 9 introduce the precise parameters of the margin of appreciation that our national courts will be called on to consider?

Mr. Leigh: No. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing that point in his wise and learned way. Judges will only have to "have regard" to these matters. Having regarded religious freedoms, they can for good reason overturn them. That is the simple answer. I shall return to that in more detail because it is the kernel of the debate.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Amendment No. 117 requires the courts to give primacy to article 9 over the other articles. Is that its intention? If that is the case, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the vast majority of hon. Members would consider it extraordinarily bizarre to give primacy to article 9, on freedom of conscience, over such articles as article 2, on the right to life, and article 3, on the prohibition of torture? Surely the hon. Gentleman concedes that the Government's solution of giving due consideration to freedom of conscience and religion is by far the most sensible way forward.

Mr. Leigh: If the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with my new clause 12, he can always suggest a better one. New schedule 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary is very satisfactory. The point that we are making is that merely giving the powers to give due consideration to religious freedoms is not enough because, having considered them, judges can then overturn them.
I have not had the benefit of the advice of parliamentary draftsmen. I shall not be so arrogant as to pretend that my new clause has all the merits, but I hope that it focuses the attention of the Committee on the issue and the problem that the Home Secretary's amendment has not dealt with. That is all that an Opposition Member can do. It is vital.
The House of Lords, with all the learned opinion available to it, considered the issues carefully when Baroness Young tabled her amendment. The issues were extensively debated by Law Lords and others, and those who have practical experience in the Churches. Those amendments, agreed to by a cross-party coalition in the other place, are now being overturned by the Government.

Mr. Brazier: It is surely irrelevant to raise, for example, the issue of torture in the context of the Churches. The answer is given by the early part of my hon. Friend's speech, in which he said that we had a clear,

concrete and well-drafted solution to the problem of the schools, and that we were looking for something similar for the religious charities.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes the point. If the Government are dissatisfied, as they are perfectly entitled to be, with our amendments and new clause, a simple solution is open to them. The amendment that I have tabled uses exactly the same words as the Government have used in their amendment, but simply extends them from schools to charities.
I was aware that interventions such as that made by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) would be made—that it would be said that we were not capable of drafting proper amendments, and all the rest of it. I therefore used the Government's very words. Of course, the amendment that I have tabled to extend to charities the rights given by the Government to schools will be dismissed in the wash of events at 10.30 pm or whenever we vote. I doubt that an adequate explanation will be given of why my amendment is defective. I do not think that it is defective; it is certainly not defective in its wording.
When the House of Lords accepted Lady Young's amendments, it gave an absolute defence, or a fairly strong defence, to those sued for acting according to their core beliefs. They were sensible amendments. I see no reason why the Government could not allow those amendments to stand, but they have decided not to.
What are the defects of the Home Secretary's amendment? Since November last year, the Churches have been arguing that their schools will be subject to litigation; religious charities have made the same point. The Lord Chancellor initially, with his customary tact and political feel, was arrogantly dismissive of the concerns of the Churches. Of course, the far more astute Home Secretary has realised, perhaps rather late in the day, that it is not wise for any Government to take on the cardinal archbishop and the Archbishop of Canterbury when they decide to act in collusion. I give credit to him for that. He has tabled new clause 9, which contains the phrase "particular regard".
May I share with the Committee existing case law, which holds that the obligation to "have regard" is a weak one? It does not mean that the court has to comply with or give precedence to the matter to which they have regard. To have "particular regard" is no doubt stronger, but it still means that that regard can be overturned by the judge.
No doubt it would help the court to have its attention drawn to the importance of the right to freedom of religion. I do not deny that the Home Secretary's amendment would ensure that judges had to pay attention to the right to religious freedom, but it would be an easy matter for a judge—[Interruption.]. I hope that that clap of thunder does not mean that my words are displeasing the Almighty. It would be easy for a judge—I assure the Committee that judges do it all the time—to assert in his summing up of the case that he had had "particular regard" to that right and so obeyed the provisions of the Home Secretary's new clause 9, but that he had, for good reasons known only to him and on which we could not speculate, decided to override that right. In doing so, he would have done all that the new clause requires, therefore it provides no defence at all.
Given all that, it is obvious that some primacy—I say this to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West—must be given to religious liberties, and that is the purpose of my amendment. It would not only call the attention of the court to the importance of the freedom of religion, but require it to give that freedom primacy as far as it is possible to do so. Only an amendment such as that would begin to protect religious freedom, which is a freedom that Parliament does and should care more deeply about than any other.
It has been suggested that I am scaremongering and that none of what I describe will happen, but I do not share that belief. There are determined anti-religious groups and individuals with an axe to grind who are well funded, and no one should underestimate just how well funded they are. I understand that, in initially ignoring these concerns, the Lord Chancellor had sterling support from such bodies as the National Secular Society, the British Humanist Association and the leader writers of the Gay Times.
If anybody thinks that I am scaremongering, look at what has happened in the United States, where the American Civil Liberties Union first succeeded in banning prayer from schools in 1963. More worryingly, when Congress changed its mind and voted to give schools in America the power to have prayers, the ACLU used legislation similar to this Bill to take Congress to the Supreme Court, which overturned the decision of Congress and banned—almost made a criminal offence of—praying in American state schools.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Gentleman cites an example of the enforcement of a constitution that requires the separation of Church and state. Can he show me anything in the European convention that requires the separation of Church and state? If he can, it would cause considerable difficulty in Germany, Sweden and several other countries.

Mr. Leigh: I shall come to Germany, Austria and other countries in a moment. I may be open to correction by the right hon. Gentleman, who is far more learned and knowledgeable in matters European than I am, but the fact is that such a case has been brought in Holland, which is a member of the European Union and is subject to the European Court. The case has been quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) and by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
I accept the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and concede that our case is not on all fours with that of America, but that example shows how determined and well funded anti-religious groups are, and how they are capable of achieving their aims. I am a barrister, and I understand how determined litigants can be, and how ingenious lawyers can be in finding new ways in which to use the law.
If the Committee does not believe me, let me point out that the Churches, or large groups within the Churches, believe that, despite the Home Secretary's new clause, judges some time in the future will use the legislation to attack Churches. They believe that there will be a ratchet effect and that plaintiffs will be persistent. That will not happen tomorrow, but the Bill will last 30, 40 or 50 years,

and the Churches fear that there will be a gradual ratchet effect in case law. Hon. Members may dismiss those fears as unfounded, but they would be unwise to do so.

Mr. Gardiner: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument that, in his view, the use of new clause 9 to force the courts to have "particular regard" to the importance of that right is not a sufficient safeguard against possible future excesses. If that is the case, will he explain why he has used the same formulation of words in his new clause 12?

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman seems not to understand that I have tabled two amendments: amendment No. 117, which is designed to give primacy to religious freedom, and new clause 12—which replicates the wording used by the Government—which is designed to extend to religious charities the protection given to schools.
I shall now discuss article 9 of the European convention on human rights. According to the Home Secretary, it is supposed to provide great comfort to the Churches; I believe that he misunderstood the issue. I hesitate to say that, as he has been given so much advice, but he seemed to do so, judging by an intervention that he made on my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire.
In recent weeks, the Home Office has used the argument, with those who advised me and have advised Baroness Young in the other place, that the case law from Strasbourg offers much comfort to religious bodies. Only 45 cases have cited article 9, and only five have made it to the full court. If only five made it to the full court, that is not a huge amount of jurisprudence to place one's faith in. Few of those cases involved a collective use of the right by a body, and none involved a public authority claiming it as a defence.
I see the Secretary of State for Scotland consulting Home Office officials so he may be able to give us an answer on this point, in which case I should be interested to hear it. If the Home Office is now basing its defence on article 9, why has no case in Strasbourg involved a public body? It is the Government, not us, who have framed clause 6 so widely. I say to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who made the intervention earlier, that, if a religious body falls into the clause 6 definition of a public authority, there is no precedent whatever in Strasbourg for allowing it to use an article 9 defence.
The final nail in the argument that article 9 is enough is that the jurisprudence of Strasbourg is not even binding on United Kingdom courts, because clause 2 requires a court only to take it into account. Therefore, the Secretary of State, in attempting to allay the fears of the Committee, has stoked up those fears—with me, at least—

Mr. Dewar: That is an important qualification.

Mr. Leigh: And my hon. Friends. The Secretary of State can now intervene, if he wishes. If I have been talking rubbish, if the legal opinion given to me is wrong and if the point made by the Secretary of State for Scotland was as devastating as he obviously intended it to be, will he intervene on my speech and say that I am wrong?

Mr. Dewar: I hesitate, simply because we are taking so long and so many hon. Members wish to speak. The point that I was making, to which I hold firmly, is that no


one has explained to me why an immense new point of principle has arisen simply from a change of forum. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman tried to do so by saying that judges in the United Kingdom were dangerous radicals, whereas they were nice, embraceable old fuddy-duddy conservatives in Strasbourg, but that is not entirely convincing. If there has been a threat, that threat to the Churches' independence has been there since 1953, and it does not appear to have manifested itself. I again challenge him to explain the difference in principle, which has resulted from the Bill, that justifies the sudden change of pace and the sudden upsurge of fear.

Mr. Leigh: The answer is that no margin of appreciation will operate on UK judges in the same way that it operates on Strasbourg judges, who have deliberately avoided becoming involved in this area of controversy because they feel that they should leave it to the national courts. We are now using the convention. We are giving British judges the right to invoke other articles in the convention, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire referred, and that is what the Churches fear. Therefore, there is a step change from the situation that we had before, about which the Committee should be concerned. The other place specifically protected the principal religious traditions.

Mr. Grieve: If there is no case law in England having direct bearing on the problems on which my hon. Friend touches, is that not in itself, if it comes to interpretation by an English court of the human rights legislation, one issue to which it will have regard in determining whether to interfere? Therefore, the margin of appreciation will still be there for the English court to apply.

Mr. Leigh: No, it will not be, because the margin of appreciation can, by its definition, be used only by an international court, not by a national court. A national court will not say to itself, "We believe that international courts are better placed to deal with these issues, so we shall not deal with them," because it is a national court. However, we are in danger of becoming involved in semantics. I hope that I have made my point. If my hon. Friend does not accept it, he can argue against it. The fact is that he is wrong in claiming that the margin of appreciation is, has, or will be used by the UK courts. It will not be.
The other place specifically protected the principal religious traditions using a phrase already evident and used in our education law. The Home Secretary dismissed it. He said that the principal religions could not be mentioned because that, he almost hinted, would be something new. It is not. We already talk about the principal religions in our existing education law. The other place gave the courts clear guidance as to which religions should be protected. The proliferation of new religions could result in a sun-worshipping sect being held to be on the same level as the Church of England. Even the most charitable view of sun-worshipping sects would not grant them such a status, but one human rights lawyer has already referred to the potential for the levelling down—his words, not mine—of religious rights.
The Government have argued that it is necessary to delete the amendments agreed to in the other place because they would cause the Bill to breach the convention by giving primacy to the rights of certain religions. That was a particular point made by the Home

Secretary. It is true—the Home Secretary was right to allude to it to this extent—that the convention prohibits that, but if he is right, why does Austria still have a system of recognising religious communities? Only five religious communities are so recognised, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church and the Helvetic Confession—whatever that is. Those Churches receive state funding. A minority Church in Austria may feel left out, but there is no breach of article 9. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary mentioned, Germany also gives privileged status to certain religions in its constitution.
That point made by the Home Secretary and relied on by him in his speech simply does not hold up. Lord Rawlinson of Ewell and another barrister, Paul Diamond, who run a legal opinion for the Christian Institute, have argued:
In our opinion it is incorrect to argue that granting a privilege to certain established religious groups is contrary to the Convention. The applicability of the inserted Defences to the principal faiths is an act that is 'objectively justifiable'.
In plain man's language, that means that giving special protection to the main religions is perfectly sensible under the convention. Other countries know that it is sensible to give priority protection to those religions that are well established and well respected in their own country, so why cannot we?
I come now to the point concerning charities. It has been said by several hon. Members that the Home Secretary's amendment will not adequately protect religious charities. The Home Secretary may say that religious charities will benefit from new clause 9, but that is not the case.
I am advised, as I said in an intervention—which the Home Secretary did not answer, but the Secretary of State for Scotland may do so later—that only organisations whose primary purpose is the advancement of religion will be classed as "religious organisations" for the purpose of the clause. Organisations that exist to provide charitable services, but which have a religious foundation will probably fall outside the clause. If the Home Secretary thinks that the intention behind the amendments is wise, but that their effect is perverse, which is what he seemed to suggest, it is open to him to amend future legislation. The omission of religious charities is a serious omission and could cause many problems in future.

Mr. Brazier: Even if, as my hon. Friend says, some religious charities may be excluded, adoption agencies, orphanages, children's homes and so on will be included in the definition of public organisations, because they carry out public functions. If Church schools require special treatment, how much more essential is it that those bodies, which have even more power over children in their most formative years, should enjoy the same special protection?

Mr. Leigh: That is an important point. It is difficult to imagine how such bodies would not be charities.
The model of incorporation that the Government have chosen is far reaching. In addition to designating a range of bodies to be public authorities, the Bill states in clause 3 that all legislation must be interpreted in line with the convention. Not only will religious bodies that get caught in the definition of "public authority" be hit, but all religious


bodies will find that people who want to sue them will start putting a human rights spin on existing legislation to try to get what they want. That will become most apparent in employment law. Unfair dismissal cases will begin to take on a new gloss as a result of people pleading human rights in conjunction with the existing law.
Only last Friday, I visited St. Barnabas's hospice in my constituency. It is a religious foundation designed to care for people who are terminally ill. By its very nature as a religious foundation, it is opposed in principle to euthanasia. What would happen if a nurse employed by a hospice started to distribute pro-euthanasia leaflets? Would the hospice have the right to dismiss that nurse? The answer is that it would have the right to dismiss the nurse, but under the Bill, as amended by the Home Secretary, that nurse could sue the hospice. The Government and the Committee should be worried about that.
I shall give another example from my constituency. Members of the Plymouth Brethren came to see me in my surgery this week. The Plymouth Brethren are a fine organisation. I believe that they have lobbied many Members of Parliament, as they are worried about the Bill. By their very nature, they regularly exclude members. In a recent case, they excluded a member who then threatened to take them to court. Under existing law, he could not do so.
The Home Secretary will assure me that because, in that case, the Plymouth Brethren were not acting as employers or as a public body, there is no way in way in which the member who had been excluded and who wanted to pursue his Church in a court would be covered by the Bill. I am sure that the Scottish Secretary will want to reassure the Plymouth Brethren on that point. They have lobbied Members of Parliament throughout the country making that point. They are a serious body and need reassuring.

Mr. Tim Collins: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, which is shared and endorsed by people of many faiths in Cumbria and north Lancashire, as I know from personal experience. In the light of what he has said and his references to the cardinal archbishop and the Archbishop of Canterbury, will he comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who has just returned to his seat, that the issue has been got up by right-wing fundamentalists and does not matter much?

Mr. Leigh: I have great respect for the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), but I do not think that his points are valid. I know that he spoke sincerely and that he would not accuse the mainstream Churches, such as the Church of England or the Catholic Church, who have serious concerns about the legislation, of being fundamentalist sects. His point regarding proposed new clause 9 simply does not add up for the reasons that I have given. Through no fault of his own, the hon. Gentleman has been absent from the Chamber, so I shall not dwell on that point.
There is no doubt that Church schools will be protected, and we give credit to the Home Secretary for that. However, he has not made the case that religious charities will receive similar protection, and he must do so. The

only way in which to avoid the problems of litigation that challenges the core beliefs of religious groups as "public authorities" is to exempt them from that definition. That is what new schedule 1 would do.
It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report progress.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Human Rights Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Jane Kennedy.]
Question agreed to.
Again considered in Committee.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Leigh: In conclusion, I believe that exemption as proposed by the shadow Home Secretary is the obvious course. However, it would not be enough because religious bodies—even if they were not public authorities—would suffer as a result of all laws being interpreted to comply with the convention under clause 3. The amendments agreed to in the other place that the Government are deleting would have provided a defence, and the Home Secretary's amendment will prove to be inadequate.
I close by reminding the Government that the sorts of cases that religious people fear will arise, because this Bill makes that possible. When those cases come up and Churches and religious charities suffer intimidation, indignity and the expense of litigation and of losing, I believe that they will remind the Government of the opportunity that was offered to them that they did not act on. To coin a phase, the Government have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

Mr. Brooke: The Committee is in the debt of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for a comprehensive speech on this subject, which is the product of much reading and much learning.
I shall be brief. I speak in this debate as a member of the Church of England. My paternal great grandfather and one of his brothers were ordained into the Church of Ireland of which their father was likewise a minister. He wrote a history of the Church of Ireland. My great grandfather ended his life as a Unitarian minister. My maternal grandfather was a canon of the Church of Wales and his son, my uncle, was dean of an English abbey. One of his daughters served as a Protestant missionary, became a nun, advanced to being a mother superior and ended her life in a closed order. I come from eclectic ecclesiastical stock.
I cite my Church of England pedigree because I was a Treasury Minister when my noble Friend Lord Lawson of Blaby introduced concessions for charities and measures against loopholes in his 1986 Budget. At that time, we held a seminar in Lancaster house, which the charities attended. My predecessor in this constituency, John Smith—now Sir John Smith, CH—asked the first question of the Chancellor. He said that there had been an argument in the Church of England for 400 years about what its purpose was, and the Chancellor had now decided, through a clause in the Finance Bill, that that issue would be settled by an assistant secretary at Inland


Revenue. He said that he thought that that would bring much pleasurable discussion to a close. I therefore approach Government intrusion into Church matters with caution.
I pay tribute to the Home Secretary, but I must approach his revisions, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough referred, with caution, too. As a result of the Government's stance in another place, there have been aspects if not of a deathbed repentance at least of a very late conversion on the part of the Government. One wonders whether the conversion was sufficiently early that proper thought could be given to the issue. I do not believe that the late Lord Butler of Saffron Walden would have approached the Education Act 1944 with the same recklessness.
I do have fears, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough alluded, about vexatious cases being brought against the Church of England. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) cited the extraordinary case of the Salvation Army in the Netherlands being sued by an atheistic Bible teacher. That is a case worthy of Mr. Justice Cocklecarrot in the pages of "Beachcomber". As I have said in an intervention, it was only settled in the Salvation Army's favour after a very expensive case. Resources were drained from the Salvation Army to fight it.
In exactly the same way, the Church of England is, very nicely, concerned about the amount of money that it has to spend on inquiries concerning church buildings which the Church of England genuinely loves. These inquiries arise from objections raised by English Heritage. So, too, I have fears about the amount of money and resources that will be drained from the Church of England by vexatious cases of which I am sure those who occupy the Treasury Bench would not approve.
All of that said, I am encouraged that the Government's heart is now beginning to be in the right place. I would give the Government a general but not universal benefit of the doubt, for they have responded to what has been said to them. It must be said that Labour Members have had universal faith in the Government. Labour Benches having been crowded during the capital punishment debate, they have been broadly empty during this debate. With the exception of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), Labour Members have been entirely silent during this debate.
I left the Chamber to consult the article in The Daily Telegraph of 19 May, which the Home Secretary quoted. He referred to various words of my noble Friend Baroness Young. I am conscious that, as with selective book reviews on dust covers, Ministers can be capable of selective quotations. I am glad that I left the Chamber to consult the article. I discovered that the Church of England spokesman's response to the Home Secretary's new clause closed cautiously as follows:
The Church will monitor closely how the Bill works out in practice and will not hesitate to go back to the Government if the legislation proves to work unsatisfactorily.
I share that caution and I hope that the Government will give a guarantee that they would react swiftly if such fears proved correct.
Assuming the Government win tonight, I remain curious about what further ground the Government would give if the other place resists the House of Commons rejecting their amendment. I hope that the Government

would then act in a way which showed that they recognise the sincerity of those of us in this Chamber, who in the best theological tradition continue to have doubts.

Mr. Wallace: I wish to address the issues raised by the Church of Scotland Act 1921. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said, the amendments that were inserted in another place were proposed by Lord MacKay of Drumadoon.
I declare an interest as an elder of the Church of Scotland and a member of the Kirk Session of St. Magnus cathedral in Kirkwall, which is potentially a court. One of the issues in the debate might be whether it is a court which could be affected by the Bill. On two occasions in the past five years, I have been a commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
I do not wish to take the time of the Committee by going into the whole history of the Church of Scotland Act. Suffice it to say that it is an important Act in terms of the constitution of the Church. It was a settlement agreed between Parliament and the Church which guaranteed the Church separate and independent jurisdiction in matters spiritual and paved the way for the union of the Church of Scotland and the Free Church in 1929.
Matters spiritual have been determined subsequently by the courts in, I think, 1936 as including the Government in disciplinary matters. In more recent times, as in the case of Logan against the Presbytery of Dumbarton, issues have arisen causing the Church to invoke the Church of Scotland Act to combat a case that was brought against the Church by a minister who had been subject to the disciplinary procedures of the Presbytery of Dumbarton.
There has been much discussion between the Secretary of State and the former moderator, and between the Prime Minister and the former moderator when he visited London at St. Andrewstide last year. The Church appreciates the time and consideration that the Government have given these matters. However, the package that has been presented to the Committee tonight has been considered by the Church of Scotland, and it is still not satisfied.
In a letter to the Secretary of State, the principal clerk of the Church of Scotland, Dr. McDonald, says:
we appreciate any movement at all on the Government's part in this matter. However, we feel that this amendment will fall far short of anything that would meet our concerns. In the first place it would mean that the Church itself was relying on its rights under the convention, whereas the present position is that we rely on the 1921 Act. Moreover the amendment requires only that a court 'must have particular regard to the importance of that right'. It then remains open, presumably, to the Court once it has had that 'particular regard' to determine the issue. There is no automatic provision, as under the 1921 Act that a determination that a matter is a spiritual one means that the court has no further jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, meeting in Edinburgh this week, passed a deliverance on Saturday morning deeply regretting that
Her Majesty's Government has, despite the representations of the Board, failed to agree to an amendment of the Human Rights Bill which would state explicitly that the position of the Church of Scotland in terms of the Church of Scotland Act, 1921, is not affected by the Bill.
It goes on:
Accordingly, urge Her Majesty's Government either to give an assurance that the Human Rights Bill is entirely consistent with the provision of the 1921 Act or to amend the Bill to ensure that it will be so consistent.


Will the Secretary of State for Scotland deal with the matter along those lines when he replies to this debate?
In a letter to the former moderator, the Secretary of State for Scotland made two points, the first of which was repeated earlier this evening by the Home Secretary. It was that one of the problems with the amendments made in another place to clause 6 is that, although it might bring some certainty to the Church of Scotland, it could bring uncertainty to the Church of England. As I said in an intervention to the Home Secretary, it is somewhat perverse to try to resolve uncertainty with the Church of England by re-creating uncertainty in the Church of Scotland. If a way could be found to create certainty for the Church of Scotland without creating unnecessary uncertainty for the Church of England, that would he a welcome development.
In a further passage in his letter to the former moderator, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
The civil courts have demonstrated their reluctance to involve themselves in the spiritual matters concerning doctrine, worship, government and discipline within the church, as defined in the Declaratory Articles recognised by the Church of Scotland Act 1921.
It is not so much reluctance, as whether the courts have jurisdiction. When the case of Logan, to which I referred, first came before the Court of Session for an interdict, the counsel who moved for the interdict did not draw to the attention of the presiding judge the provisions of the Church of Scotland Act 1921, and the interdict was granted. Within a matter of days, the case came back to court and the provisions of the 1921 Act were drawn to Lord Osborne's attention. He immediately withdrew the interdict and said that the provisions of the 1921 Act prevailed. There was no further consideration of the merits of the case before the court.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said that he found compelling the argument put by the Lord Advocate in another place, that, because the courts of the Church of Scotland do not amount to public authorities, they would not fall within the scope of the Bill. However, it is fair to point out that, although the Lord Advocate said that he found it extremely difficult to conjure up circumstances in which the courts of the Church of Scotland could be public authorities, he said on 5 February in the other place that it was possible, in some circumstances, that those courts of the Church could be public authorities. The Church of Scotland wants that possibility to be addressed.
The Secretary of State for Scotland suggested that there had been no case in 30 years in which any such issue arose, and he may make the fair point that the Bill brings human rights legislation home and makes our domestic courts, rather than Strasbourg, the appropriate forum. That, too, has been the case with the Church of Scotland. The Bill's purpose is to achieve a more convenient forum in which litigants can take action. There may have been no such case because people thought that going to Strasbourg was outwith their financial reach. It cannot clearly be shown that that is a game, set and match argument, but the Secretary of State fairly asked what was the difference in principle.
That case is more difficult to answer, but, if nothing in principle has changed and given that successive Governments have in no way departed from—indeed, have

acknowledged and supported—the settlement between Church and state arrived at in 1921, there should be no difficulty in the Secretary of State giving the assurance that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Church of Scotland in matters spiritual, under the 1921 Act, will be unaffected by the Bill. If it has been unaffected in the past 30 years, the point that he made must also mean that it will be unaffected by the Bill. I would welcome such an assurance.
The Church of Scotland is anxious not to be thought to be in any way ignoring human rights or the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention. Paradoxically, the Church of Scotland, perhaps before some other Churches, accepted that it would be subject to human rights legislation in its secular affairs. The Church of Scotland would be subject to the convention's provisions in relation to human rights issues arising from its provision of eventide homes and clinics for drug addicts.
Furthermore, the committee on Church and nation has today been debating a resolution—I am not sure whether it has been passed—marking the 50th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights and welcoming the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law. The General Assembly also had before it a motion stating:
Instruct the Board of Practice and Procedure, in consultation with the Committee on Church and Nation, to consider whether, and if so how, the Church's commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights might be appropriately contained in an Act of Assembly, especially but not exclusively in relation to disciplinary and judicial procedures, and to report to the next General Assembly.
The Church of Scotland is saying that it has exclusive jurisdiction in matters spiritual and that it would not be for the House to direct it to amend its legislation if, for the sake of argument and in extreme circumstances, the European Court of Human Rights had found that there had been a breach in a procedure and practice of a court of the Church. The Church of Scotland claims exclusive jurisdiction, but it is willing to consider, where appropriate, how it might incorporate the provisions into its practices.
I have set out the position. I shall listen with interest to the Secretary of State. We may return to the matter, but it would be interesting to consider the position if he gave the assurance that nothing in principle will change and, therefore, nothing in principle that affects the exclusive jurisdiction of the 1921 Act will change.

Mr. Grieve: I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate, I hope reasonably briefly. I should at the outset declare an interest. I am a practising member of the Church of England, a churchwarden and a member of the London Diocesan Synod, so I have an interest in ensuring that freedom of religion is maintained. It is of great importance to me.
That said, I have listened carefully to the debate, particularly the comments of my hon. Friends, and my understanding—I am willing to be corrected—of the convention's workings does not lead me to share the somewhat apocalyptic vision of the Bill's consequences. That said, some of the matters that have been raised seem to be of considerable importance.
Trying to pull the curtain back from some of the arguments that have been advanced, we have to face the fact—the point has been made—that the convention is


quite old. Social conventions and mores have moved a long way since the convention was brought into being. Matters that at the time of the convention were adhered to and which most people would have considered commonplace—in particular, the way in which most Governments in western Europe conducted their government, which was on the basis of what were essentially Christian principles—have changed. As social mores have changed and been adjusted to, and changes in the law have resulted, so people who practise mainstream faiths have found themselves increasingly at variance with what is widely accepted in secular society as the norm.
I dare say that the reason why there is so much anxiety about incorporation is because it has focused minds on the extent to which some of the convention's articles and their interpretation, especially those that I suppose might nowadays be described as politically correct—those defending the rights of people who wish to have life styles that might be described as at variance with the faiths that the various religious denominations practise—have a ratchet effect of dragging people increasingly into a secular society and making them conform to it. Those fears are misplaced; the convention's workings have not suggested hitherto that that is a realistic fear.
There is a second reason why I do not think that that will happen. I do not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) that the interpretation by the judiciary, whether it be north or south of the border, will be shackled by the absence of a margin of appreciation, and that it will not be able to interpret the way in which the convention is supposed to operate correctly. The convention is all about balances—for example, the balance between article 9 and article 13. Dozens of them can be looked at, but I do not see that that is a fundamental problem.
The Home Secretary's amendment appears to go a long way towards meeting the anxieties. I see the force behind the amendments that were tabled in the other place, but one or two, especially those in relation to article 2, seem to go dangerously close to providing definitions about mainstream religion which cause me some anxiety and seem not to conform with what the convention is all about. Therefore, I accept that this is a difficult area, and I shall listen with great care to what the Secretary of State for Scotland says about the matter.
There are two fundamental issues. First, as I said on Second Reading, I have never considered the Bill to be writ in stone. If it is found not to work correctly because it appears to have a discriminatory bias against organised religion, we shall have to produce amendments to make it work. I should like an assurance that that will be kept under constant review.

Mr. Lock: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about discriminatory effects, but does he accept that experience in other European countries is that a judiciary applying the margin of appreciation has not given rise to any real concerns about such effects?

Mr. Grieve: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I accept that we are moving into a new world, and I have listened carefully to the arguments and the apocalyptic visions of endless litigation and the erosion of the rights of religious organisations, which will be pilloried for their

views. However, I did not find those arguments realistic, and I do not share the anxieties that have been expressed by some of my hon. Friends. However, the Government must consider some of the underlying anxieties.

Mr. John Hayes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Grieve: I shall give way—briefly, I trust, because I want to finish.

Mr. Hayes: I am not a churchwarden, just a humble churchgoer. Is my hon. Friend saying that we are to accept the changed norms that he says isolate Christians such as him and me rather than challenging them and fighting for what we believe in?

Mr. Grieve: The norms have been changed largely by Acts of Parliament that have nothing to do with the European convention on human rights. Legislation has been passed by Parliament under successive Governments of both major parties, changing the way in which society operates. That is a great challenge for those with religious beliefs, but it has little to do with the European convention and the way in which it is applied. In some ways, the incorporation of the European convention will provide greater protection than hitherto.
My second concern is the definition of public authority. I should like to hear more about that, because it remains a source of anxiety to me.
I am conscious that others may wish to speak, so I shall close my remarks on that note.

Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for leaving me two or three minutes to make two brief points—one technical and the other substantive.
My technical point is whether we are dealing with the European convention on human rights. In fact, we are dealing not with the convention but with the sharper instrument of a national statute. The fact that other countries that have embodied the convention into their law have chosen to take account of the concerns about the Churches that several Conservative Members have raised proves that our amendments are necessary. That is reinforced by the fact that the Government have wisely chosen to take those concerns on board for schools.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and other Conservative Members have asked the Government to broaden the thinking that led them to make sensible amendments to the School Standards and Framework Bill to cover other religious charities.
Moving away from the technical argument, there is a substantial issue about the working of some charities. I should like to focus on children's charities, particularly adoption agencies and children's homes. Churches have traditionally run many such organisations. The Government have chosen to uphold the policy of Churches to appoint Christian teachers. Children's charities have more control over a child's life and future than even a school. An adoption agency will decide who a child's parents will be. A children's home has 24-hour control over a child. It is even more important that Churches should be allowed to continue to appoint Christians to posts in such organisations.
I ask Ministers to ask themselves whether it is in anyone's interest to have a situation in which Churches could face litigation by people who, although they say that wish to work in those homes, have known and declared positions that are antithetical to the religious ethos of the organisations running the homes, which look after some of the most vulnerable children in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Clappison: This has been a good debate, with worthy speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, conducted against a background of widespread and deeply felt concern among many Churches and religious organisations. However seriously hon. Members take the concerns—the Opposition take them seriously—and whatever one's views on them, it is important to do them justice and to seek to allay them in every possible way.
We have heard powerful speeches from Opposition Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made a well-considered speech, and a powerful plea on religious charities. His plea—which we hope will be heard—was echoed in an equally powerful, but necessarily shorter speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). He made the very same point on the need to protect charities.
We heard also from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who, as he said, spoke from "eclectic ecclesiastical stock". He made some very important points, particularly on the danger of vexatious litigants. I think that that problem will come back to us time and again. His concerns echo the concerns of those in another place, who speak with spiritual authority. The concerns need to be borne very much in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made some very interesting points on how social change is dealt with in the convention. Opposition Members agreed very strongly with him when he talked about the inadequacies of the definition of public authorities—which is a problem that will arise time after time in our debates on the Bill, and is particularly relevant in this debate on religion and Churches.
As the Home Secretary said in opening the debate on this group of amendments, when he spoke to the Churches, he felt that he was able to reassure them, and told them that they would be regarded as public authorities only when they were standing in the place of the state—which, I think, is the phrase he used.

Mr. Straw: indicated assent.

Mr. Clappison: The Home Secretary will know that, for the purposes of the law, Churches stand in no special position as a public authority. In deciding in actions whether Churches are public authorities, the courts will consider them on the same basis as they apply to any other organisation that is said to be a public authority. The test that the courts will have to apply to a Church, as to any other organisation, is one of deciding whether any of its functions are functions of a public nature.
Ultimately, the Government have not been able to tell the Churches or other religious organisations any more than they have been able to tell any other type of

organisation whether they are a public authority—which gives rise to real concerns. Ministers have told us that the matter will be left to the courts, who will decide whether functions are of a public nature and whether a Church or organisation is a public authority.
The matter has been examined by those who are far more learned in the law and experienced in the matter than I am. In the other place, the eminent Lord Donaldson—who is no stranger to high judicial office—recently considered the meaning of "a public authority". He said that he thought it was clear that, for example, local government, police, immigration officers, prisons, courts and tribunals would all be public authorities. He went on to consider other organisations, and thought that, for example, the BBC performed functions of a public nature, and that, if the BBC performed such functions, so did ITV and the radio companies.
Lord Donaldson went on to say that, in his analysis of public authorities, he could not say for sure that Safeway was not a public authority, as it performed some functions that were arguably of a public nature.

Mrs. May: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will comment on the possibility that private sector organisations that are undertaking functions under compulsory competitive tendering that were previously performed by public bodies could be covered under the definition?

Mr. Clappison: That is an important point, and it supports my argument. It is something that religious bodies will have to consider. I understand that, in another place, the Minister concerned admitted that the BBC was likely to be regarded as a public authority and, possibly, even Channel 4. I thought that the whole point of the BBC was that it was not a public body—it has a charter saying that it is not part of the state. No one could say that the BBC is standing in the place of the state, yet the Government say that it too could be a public authority.
I understand that even the noble Lord Chancellor has had difficulty with this question. As we all know now, he began by saying that the Press Complaints Commission was not a public authority, but had to change his mind after receiving learned opinion, and say that perhaps it was. That is the background of difficulties over the definition of public authorities which gives rise to so much concern among our Churches and religious organisations. They rightly look for protection against any actions that might be brought against them because they are regarded as public authorities.
We have to consider carefully the degree of protection that the Government are affording them. We appreciate that the Home Secretary has gone to some lengths on this, but the protection that he is offering through new clause 9 is conclusively weaker than the protection already available in the Bill and weaker than that offered in the proposed amendments.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said, it is the weakest form of protection that could be given—weaker than a complete defence, which is in the Bill at the moment, and weaker than a defence in specific cases. It certainly does not go as far as an exemption from being a public authority would go to afford a defence, merely asking the courts to have particular regard to the importance of freedom of religion, conscience and thought.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough rightly said, the courts may look at the provision and say that they have had particular regard to it, but that they will still come down against the Church or religious organisation.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: rose—

Mr. Clappison: I will not give way, in view of the hour.
There is no guarantee that any of the possibilities or contingencies that my right hon. and hon. Friends have described as regards the Churches would not come to pass. If new clause 9 is added to the Bill, there is no guarantee that those things will be prevented from happening. The Times has stated:
A Home Office source said the amendment would in general terms 'bolster religious freedom' but stop homosexual couples from being able to sue their vicar or church if they were refused a church wedding. The amendment would also deny divorcees the right to remarry in church.
No Minister can say at the Dispatch Box that the Bill would prevent that contingency, and it is the example that the Home Office chose.
I see the Home Secretary shaking his head, but that came from a Home Office source. Neither the Home Secretary nor any other hon. Member on the Government Front Bench can say at the Dispatch Box that the new clause would stop homosexual marriages or any of the other things that might come to pass. I emphasise that I choose that example because the Government themselves chose it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) asked whether, if it were decided that civil marriages should be allowed for such unions in the future, the convention rights would result in the Churches having to follow suit. That question was not answered, but it needs to be. So does the important point made by Liberal Democrat Members about the Church of Scotland.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) both mentioned that matter. The latter produced a letter from Dr. McDonald, who held high office in the Church of Scotland. He said that the Church was still not satisfied by what the Government were saying, particularly about the implications for the Church of Scotland Act 1921, which produced a separation between Church and state, and allowed the courts of the Church to govern its spiritual affairs. The Church was still concerned that that right would be taken away, and that it would be left to rely on convention rights.
We look for a considered reply from the Secretary of State for Scotland to those important points by the Church of Scotland. I have great respect for his debating skills, and I would not lightly cross swords with him, but his intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire fell below his usual standard of canniness. He had a good answer for my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, but, if he really thinks that the Bill will make no difference and that the position will be the same as it has been since we signed up to the convention, what on earth are the Government doing?
What was the Prime Minister doing when he said at Question Time that he would try to address our concerns? What has the Home Secretary been doing in meeting religious leaders to try to allay their concerns and in tabling amendments? If the Bill was never going to change anything, was not all that activity totally unjustified? The Secretary of State seems to have come to the Chamber to urge the Committee to support an amendment that he has suggested is completely unnecessary.
I leave the Secretary of State to that task, but we believe that some important points need answering. Opposition Members have expressed significant concerns—we are concerned about this country's traditional religious freedoms, and we want to give our Churches and religious organisations a high standard of protection. We expect the Secretary of State to do justice to those important matters.

Mr. Dewar: I certainly accept that there are strong feelings on these issues, which have been well illustrated in some lengthy but sincere speeches over the past four or five hours.
I find myself in a slightly difficult situation—those words usually drip with hypocrisy—as I seem to be expected to reply to all the points that have been made. In fact, I arrived in the Chamber with a rather narrow remit—to deal with those matters that relate to the Church of Scotland. If I do not get through everything in the comparatively short time that I have, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me—no doubt they can take matters up with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on other occasions.
Some of the points that have been made have been excitable—that sounds uncharitable, but I do not mean it to be. Some hon. Members have convinced themselves that there will be a total sea change in the way in which we conduct our affairs, and that life will be made extremely difficult for the Churches.
A number of cases have been thrown at us. I do not pretend to know much about the Dutch Salvation Army case and the refusal to employ a non-Christian kitchen worker, but I am advised that that case was fought entirely under Dutch domestic law, and had nothing to do with the European convention on human rights. In the event, the result of the case was right from the point of view of those hon. Members who mentioned it, but the important point is that the case was fought under Dutch domestic law.
Hon. Members have expressed concern about the use or sale of pornography on Church Commission premises—that may be a legitimate worry in specific circumstances, but the Bill will not prevent the Church Commissioners from terminating the licence of a news vendor who sold pornography from their premises. The contractual relationship between the Church Commissioners as a landlord and the news vendor as a tenant is a private matter; it would not be subject to the Bill's public authority provisions.
I make that prosaic point deliberately, as great theories of what is likely to happen have been erected, and I do not think that they are entirely justified—

Sir Brian Mawhinney: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I shall not give way, as I do not want to get too involved at this point.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary demonstrated, the Government have tried hard to give reassurances—I am talking in general terms—about the Churches south of the border. We may think that fears are exaggerated or perhaps illusory, but that does not mean that sensible people will not try to find ways in which to give reassurances. The wording of new clause 9—the over-arching provision—is entirely sensible, as was accepted by a number of hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is becoming almost an object of fascination to me. I sat through 10 days of consideration of the Scotland Bill, and he outlasted me on every one of them, but here he is back again, giving every sign of listening to the debate, which puts him in a small minority.
New clause 9 refers to
the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion",
which, to put it informally, is a sort of shorthand, because it is certainly intended to include the right to manifest religion or belief in worship, teaching practice and observance. The language of article 9 is set out fully in schedule 1. I know that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is basically on my side of the argument—I hope that that does not embarrass him—and that became clear in what he said. I hope that that is of some reassurance to him, as it is intended to be, more broadly, to others.
10.45 pm
I do not want to bandy quotations, as there are always dangers in that, but it is fair to say that Baroness Young, who led a spirited fight over these issues in another place, has accepted that our amendments and new clause are a final recognition by the Government that issues of importance were at risk. She said that the amendments
will give assurance to people of all denominations that, should there be litigation under the Bill, the courts must pay particular regard to the position of churches and religious schools.
The Scottish situation demands some comment. I respond in particular to amendment No. 46, which would exempt the Church of Scotland Act 1921 from the principle of statutory interpretation in clause 3. It is a useful peg on which to hang a more general and important debate, but the amendment would not meet any of the points made by Opposition Members. I hope that it will not be pressed to a vote.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already made it clear that we must reverse the provisions inserted in clause 6 on Third Reading in another place, which would have exempted from the public authority provisions of the Bill courts or bodies exercising a jurisdiction recognised, but not created, by Parliament in spiritual matters, although I recognise that those provisions were aimed or intended in part to help with the Church of Scotland's worries.
I understand that Church's position. It is our national Church north of the border, and enjoys a unique status in the life of the Scottish nation, as well as having a place in the life of the United Kingdom. The Act of Union of 1707 safeguarded the Presbyterian religion of Scotland, and in the 19th century there was a cathartic struggle that led to the disruption of 1843 and a remarkable stand on

principle over the impact of the Church Patronage Act 1874, when a third of ministers walked out from their stipends and their livings, taking their elders into what was a wilderness, until they were rescued by a remarkable upsurge of giving and energy from their new congregations. Those are great and remarkable events in Scottish history.
Harmonious relations were re-established with the Church of Scotland Act 1921, and a settlement emerged. I do not know how many hon. Members have read the annexe to that Act, but it is a superb piece of language, biblical in its power and worthy in every sense of the original King James version. I recommend it to anyone who wants to enjoy a powerful passage, written with feeling in every sense.
I have always taken an interest in these matters, and there is no way in which I would want to damage the harmony that has reigned between Church and state in Scotland and the happy co-operation that has taken place over the years. I am aware that the Church considers that the Bill represents a threat to that harmony, and I genuinely regret that. That was not intended, and if it continued it would be a sadness for us all.
I have had extensive conversations with the Rev. Sandy McDonald, the retiring moderator, with Dr. Finlay Macdonald, the clerk, and with the procurator, Mr. Dunlop, who brought powerful arguments to bear. The conversations were constructive, but I do not hide the fact that there is still a gap between us. The Church has a long memory in such matters, and politicians are often criticised for taking a short-term view. We want to listen carefully to the Church, and we have been listening carefully, though we are still separated in logic.
I was at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland this week because our old colleague Norman Hogg, now Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, was making his debut as the Lord High Commissioner. I was unashamedly proud to be in the gallery. My colleagues may be amused to hear that I was hurried out by the purse-bearer just as it was starting a debate on the Human Rights Bill. I therefore did not hear the debate that led to the deliverance and the deep regret about our position that resulted.
We are still in correspondence. The principal clerk to the assembly wrote to me on 18 May. Only now have we had the opportunity to consider the letter. Briefly, he argues that the Church of Scotland Act 1921 guaranteed the Church certainty of non-interference by the state in spiritual matters. It feels that new clause 9 does not do enough. Although it regards the new clause as an improvement and some reassurance, it does not believe that it closes the gap or does enough to guarantee freedom of thought, religion and conscience as we intend. I am sympathetic, but there are real difficulties from which I cannot retreat.
It is an odd situation, because I recognise that the Church's fears are genuine, but I also believe that they are unfounded. It is difficult to reconcile the situation to the satisfaction of both sides. As has been argued in another place by the Lord Advocate, I want to make it clear, as the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, that we find it hard to think of circumstances in which a Church of Scotland procedure involving acting as a court would be taken to be a public authority within the meaning of the Bill.
I do not say that lightly. We have considered the matter carefully, and used other legal advice on it. It is said that it is possible that it could happen. I am not an absolutist—possibilities are, I suppose, always possibilities—but we have tried genuinely hard to think of such a circumstance, and cannot come up with anything that justifies the fear that has been raised.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) mentioned the case of Thomas Tyler, but that is not a helpful precedent. It dealt specifically with that unfortunate priest's alleged actions as an individual. As the Committee probably knows—actually, I suppose that it probably will not know, because I did not know until this document was given to me, and I have no reason to think that I was much behind the pace on this. It states:
The Commission is not, however, required to decide whether the proceedings in the present case determined the applicant's civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 … of the Convention, as, even if they did, the application is in any event manifestly ill-founded".
It goes on at some length to explain the basis on which it came to that conclusion.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I was one of the few closer to the pace, in that I knew the outcome. That was not the point of citing that example. The point is that someone whom the Home Secretary told us would almost always be acting in a private capacity was designated by the European Commission of Human Rights as primarily operating in a public capacity. That blurring of the distinction was at the heart of the Home Secretary's presentation. We should be grateful for the Secretary of State's views on that.

Mr. Dewar: I have neither the time nor the inclination to rehearse the facts of the case, but I understand that it turned greatly on the circumstances of this gentleman's private life, which became a matter of contention.
I mentioned the Tyler case because the commission considered the Court of Arches and the consistory court, and found that they were public authorities, but complied with article 6. Under the 1921 Act, the courts of the Church of Scotland would not, I believe, be held to be public authorities. That is the distinction, and the reason why I argue strongly that there is no significant risk that they would be held to be public authorities and therefore open to intervention in the civil courts under the European convention on human rights.
If one looks at the record—this is important, and it is of course a matter of interpretation, but I ask the House to take my side of the argument—one will see that, even in the Scottish domestic courts, there has been a great reluctance to intervene in these matters.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire asked me about Strasbourg decisions, and to quote examples. Unashamedly, I say to him that I cannot quote examples, because there have been none—certainly in Scotland, on which I can speak with a little more clarity.
The European convention on human rights has been available for use since 1953. I understand that it may be a little easier to get to the courts once the convention has been imported into the ambit of the domestic courts, but human rights cases are often contentious and difficult cases. The fact that, in the past 45 years, no one has gone to the European Court of Human Rights and tried to

challenge my interpretation and understanding of the situation is of some significance—I put it no higher than that.
It is a little bit—I hope that no one thinks that it is undignified to say so—the case of the dog that did not bark, but, if we are going to have these problems, I think that we would have had at least a few yaps in those 45 years, and they have been conspicuous by their absence.
I know that I am repeating the point that I made in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), but I hold firmly to the point that the convention has been in being for more than 45 years. The fabric of our religious freedoms has not crumbled. The fact that we are now allowing the British courts—the Scottish and English courts respectively—to deal with the issues that come up under the convention of human rights represents no alteration of substance to the relationship between the Church and the courts.
I am not terribly impressed—although I understand it, and I do not want to be swept into an unsympathetic stance—with the idea that suddenly the floodgates will open, when no one can point me to any single change other than the forum in which the cases may be heard that will result from the Bill. It does not ring true.
I referred to the attitude of the Scottish domestic courts. They might be said to have a tendency to ca' canny on the matter. In considering ministers' relationship with the Church, the courts usually hold that they are not determining civil rights because the Church as a court is not a public authority.
I accept the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland, that the Logan case did not proceed beyond the interdict stage. I do not know why the counsel who appeared for the minister at the opening hearings did not draw attention to the 1921 Act, but, when he did, Lord Osborne sent the case packing in no uncertain terms, with some fairly robust obiter of one sort or another. That reinforces what seems to me to be the general situation. The picture is one in which the powers and the structure will continue, with the one change being the court to which one can go. The fears that have been expressed have not been realised in the past.
The jurisprudence to date, both domestic and in Strasbourg, indicates the extreme reluctance of the civil courts to become involved in any matters of religious worship, government, discipline or doctrine. It is my firm belief that that will continue. The measure is not based on whim: it is based on 45 years of experience in both jurisdictions.
I do not believe—[Interruption.]. I shall finish shortly. I must say that the one thing that happens in government is that the Whips become very efficient.
I do not believe that there is a practical danger. I do not believe that the Scottish courts, given the 1921 Act, will be held to be public authorities. I do not want to hide from the House, but, if that does happen, there will of course be a difficulty. I do not believe that it will happen, and I am founding on that, but I have in honesty to say that, if they were held to be public authorities, it would be difficult to justify an exception for that public authority to pick it out from all the other public authorities. However, that is not an argument in which we need to be embroiled at the moment, because all the evidence so


strongly holds together to suggest that the danger will not emerge. That point has been put by the Lord Advocate and looked at thoroughly, and I believe it to be valid.
We have made considerable efforts to find a way forward, but we have not been able to find a form of amendment that meets in full the concerns of the Church of Scotland while preserving the integrity of our policy as a Government, as set out in "Bringing Rights Home". I doubt whether further reflection at this late stage will change that. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are prepared to consider any further representations from the Church of Scotland. I am conscious that the letter quoted this evening arrived literally in the past 24 hours; obviously, it must be looked at with care.
11 pm
I do not want to slam doors shut, but I have set out what I believe to be a genuine difficulty, and I cannot envisage its being easily resolved. I have to agree that no law is set in stone. In another context, we have spoken much of parliamentary sovereignty and the sovereignty of the House of Commons, and, if the unexpected difficulties that I have suggested will not happen turn out to be very real, I hope that neither I nor my Government would be too proud to look again at the situation. However, I do not think it sensible to legislate on the basis of a situation that we genuinely believe does not exist and will not happen. On that basis, I ask that amendment No. 46 be withdrawn.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 308, Noes 128.

Division No. 283]
[11.1 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ainger, Nick
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Alexander, Douglas
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Allan, Richard
Browne, Desmond


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Buck, Ms Karen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Burden, Richard


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Burgon, Colin


Ashton, Joe
Burnett, John


Atherton, Ms Candy
Burstow, Paul


Atkins, Charlotte
Byers, Stephen


Austin, John
Caborn, Richard


Baker, Norman
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Banks, Tony
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Battle, John
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bayley, Hugh
Cann, Jamie


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Caton, Martin


Benton, Joe
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Berry, Roger
Chaytor, David


Betts, Clive
Chidgey, David


Blackman, Liz
Church, Ms Judith


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clapham, Michael


Blizzard, Bob
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Boateng, Paul
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bradshaw, Ben
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Brake, Tom
Clelland, David


Brand, Dr Peter
Clwyd, Ann


Breed, Colin
Coaker, Vernon





Coffey, Ms Ann
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cohen, Harry
Hoon, Geoffrey


Colman, Tony
Hope, Phil


Cooper, Yvette
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Dr Kim


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cotter, Brian
Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Crausby, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hutton, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Illsley, Eric



Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)



Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Brian


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Denham, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dobbin, Jim
Kemp, Fraser


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Doran, Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Dowd, Jim
Kidney, David


Drew, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Edwards, Huw
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Efford, Clive
Kingham, Ms Tess


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Ennis, Jeff
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Feam, Ronnie
Laxton, Bob


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lepper, David


Fisher, Mark
Leslie, Christopher


Flint, Caroline
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Follett, Barbara
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Linton, Martin


Foster, Don (Bath)
Livingstone, Ken


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Livsey, Richard


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fyfe, Maria
Lock, David


Gardiner, Barry
Love, Andrew


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McAllion, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McAvoy, Thomas


Gerrard, Neil
McCabe, Steve


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonnell, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Godsiff, Roger
Mackinlay, Andrew


Goggins, Paul
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
McNamara, Kevin


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
MacShane, Denis


Gorrie, Donald
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McWilliam, John


Grocott, Bruce
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grogan, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mandelson, Peter


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hanson, David
Martlew, Eric


Harris, Dr Evan
Maxton, John


Healey, John
Meale, Alan


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Merron, Gillian


Hepburn, Stephen
Michael, Alun


Heppell, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hesford, Stephen
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Milburn, Alan


Hill, Keith
Miller, Andrew


Hinchliffe, David
Mitchell, Austin






Moffatt, Laura
Snape, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Moran, Ms Margaret
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Spellar, John


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morley, Elliot
Steinberg, Gerry


Mudie, George
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mullin, Chris
Stinchcombe, Paul


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Norris, Dan
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Oaten, Mark
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Hara, Eddie
Stunell, Andrew


O'Neill, Martin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Organ, Mrs Diana
Swinney, John


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pearson, Ian



Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pike, Peter L
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pond, Chris
Todd, Mark


Pope, Greg
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Pound, Stephen
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Trickett, Jon


Primarolo, Dawn
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Quinn, Lawrie
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Radice, Giles
Tyler, Paul


Rammell, Bill
Vaz, Keith


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wallace, James


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Walley, Ms Joan


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Ward, Ms Claire



Welsh, Andrew


Rooker, Jeff
White, Brian


Rooney, Terry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Roy, Frank



Ruddock, Ms Joan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Willis, Phil


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wills, Michael


Salmond, Alex
Winnick, David


Salter, Martin
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sanders, Adrian
Wise, Audrey


Savidge, Malcolm
Woolas, Phil


Sawford, Phil
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sheerman, Barry
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Singh, Marsha



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Collins, Tim


Amess, David
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Curry, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Baldry, Tony
Day, Stephen


Bercow, John
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan Smith, Iain


Blunt, Crispin
Evans, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fallon, Michael


Brady, Graham
Flight, Howard


Brazier, Julian
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fox, Dr Liam


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fraser, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Gale, Roger


Cash, William
Garnier, Edward


Chope, Christopher
Gibb, Nick


Clappison, James
Gill, Christopher


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gray, James





Green, Damian
Page, Richard


Greenway, John
Paterson, Owen


Grieve, Dominic
Prior, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Randall, John


Hammond, Philip
Robathan, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hayes, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heald, Oliver
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Ruffley, David


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
St Aubyn, Nick


Horam, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hunter, Andrew
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jenkin, Bernard
Spring, Richard


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Steen, Anthony


Key, Robert
Streeter, Gary


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Swayne, Desmond


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Syms, Robert


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Leigh, Edward
Tredinnick, David


Letwin, Oliver
Trend, Michael


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tyrie, Andrew


Lidington, David
Viggers, Peter


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Walter, Robert


Loughton, Tim
Wardle, Charles


Luff, Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wilkinson, John


Malins, Humfrey
Willetts, David


Maples, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Woodward, Shaun


May, Mrs Theresa
Yeo, Tim


Moss, Malcolm
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


Norman, Archie
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. John Whittingdale.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 118, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out 'section or Schedule 1' and insert 'Act'.— [Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 303, Noes 128.

Division No. 284]
[11.15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Ainger, Nick
Benton, Joe


Alexander, Douglas
Berry, Roger


Allan, Richard
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blackman, Liz


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blizzard, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Boateng, Paul


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Austin, John
Bradshaw, Ben


Baker, Norman
Brake, Tom


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Brand, Dr Peter


Banks, Tony
Breed, Colin


Barnes, Harry
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Battle, John
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)






Browne, Desmond
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Buck, Ms Karen
Gerrard, Neil


Burden, Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burgon, Colin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burnett, John
Godman, Dr Norman A


Burstow, Paul
Godsiff, Roger


Byers, Stephen
Goggins, Paul


Caborn, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gorrie, Donald


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Grocott, Bruce


Cann, Jamie
Grogan, John


Caton, Martin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chaytor, David
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chidgey, David
Hanson, David


Church, Ms Judith
Harris, Dr Evan


Clapham, Michael
Healey, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clelland, David
Hill, Keith


Clwyd, Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Coaker, Vernon
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
Hope, Phil


Colman, Tony
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cooper, Yvette
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Dr Kim


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cotter, Brian
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Crausby, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hutton, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Illsley, Eric



Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)



Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Brian


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Denham, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dobbin, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Doran, Frank
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dowd, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Drew, David
Kidney, David


Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Edwards, Huw
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Efford, Clive
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kingham, Ms Tess


Ennis, Jeff
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Feam, Ronnie
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Laxton, Bob


Fisher, Mark
Lepper, David


Flint, Caroline
Leslie, Christopher


Follett, Barbara
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Foster, Don (Bath)
Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Livingstone, Ken


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Livsey, Richard


Fyfe, Maria
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gardiner, Barry
Lock, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Love, Andrew





McAllion, John
Roy, Frank


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McCabe, Steve
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonnell, John
Salmond, Alex


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Salter, Martin


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sanders, Adrian


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Savidge, Malcolm


McNamara, Kevin
Sawford, Phil


MacShane, Denis
Singh, Marsha


Mactaggart, Fiona
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mallaber, Judy
Snape, Peter


Mandelson, Peter
Soley, Clive


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Spellar, John


Martlew, Eric
Squire, Ms Rachel


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Merron, Gillian
Stinchcombe, Paul


Michael, Alun
Stoate, Dr Howard


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Milburn, Alan
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Miller, Andrew
Stunell, Andrew


Mitchell, Austin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moffatt, Laura
Swinney, John


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moran, Ms Margaret



Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mudie, George
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mullin, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Todd, Mark


Norris, Dan
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Oaten, Mark
Touhig, Don


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Trickett, Jon


O'Hara, Eddie
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Neill, Martin
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Tyler, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Vaz, Keith


Pendry, Tom
Wallace, James


Perham, Ms Linda
Walley, Ms Joan


Pickthall, Colin
Ward, Ms Claire


Pike, Peter L
Welsh, Andrew


Plaskitt, James
White, Brian


Pond, Chris
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pope, Greg
Wicks, Malcolm


Pound, Stephen
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Quinn, Lawrie
Willis, Phil


Rammell, Bill
Winnick, David


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wise, Audrey


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Woolas, Phil



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Rooker, Jeff
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Rooney, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Amess, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Brady, Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baldry, Tony
Browning, Mrs Angela


Bercow, John
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Butterfill, John


Blunt, Crispin
Cash, William


Boswell, Tim
Chope, Christopher






Clappison, James
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Collins, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lansley, Andrew


Cran, James
Leigh, Edward


Curry, Rt Hon David
Letwin, Oliver


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Day, Stephen
Lidington, David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Duncan Smith, Iain
Loughton, Tim


Evans, Nigel
Luff, Peter


Faber, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fabricant, Michael
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Fallon, Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Flight, Howard
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Malins, Humfrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maples, John


Fox, Dr Liam
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fraser, Christopher
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Gale, Roger
May, Mrs Theresa


Garnier, Edward
Moss, Malcolm


Gibb, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Norman, Archie


Gray, James
Ottaway, Richard


Green, Damian
Page, Richard


Greenway, John
Paterson, Owen


Grieve, Dominic
Prior, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Randall, John


Hammond, Philip
Robathan, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hayes, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heald, Oliver
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Ruffley, David


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
St Aubyn, Nick


Horam, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hunter, Andrew
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jenkin, Bernard
Spring, Richard


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Steen, Anthony


Key, Robert
Streeter, Gary





Swayne, Desmond
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Syms, Robert
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Willetts, David


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Trend, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Tyrie, Andrew
Woodward, Shaun


Viggers, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Walter, Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wardle, Charles
Tellers for the Noes:


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. John Whittingdale.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Jane Kennedy.]
Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That—

(1) the matter of a regional strategic framework for Northern Ireland as set out in the discussion paper 'Shaping our Future', being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee for its consideration; and
(2) at the sitting on Thursday 4th June—

(i) after any statement which may be made by a Minister of the Crown pursuant to Standing Order No. 112(1) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (ministerial statements)), the Committee shall consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
(ii) at the completion of these proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Jane Kennedy.]

Orders of the Day — Church Bells

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Mr. Michael Fabricant: First, I should like to set the scene. High in the towers of many of England's beautiful parish churches, as well as our cathedrals, including Lichfield cathedral, which is over 800 years old, are some of the oldest and finest examples of English heritage. Their future now seems threatened by the very organisation that ought to be protecting them.
Hanging side by side, church bells cast up to 600 or 700 years ago are often found next to bells cast in the present century. Both are examples of a truly English craft now practised by only two bell foundries in our land. Week by week, many of our church bells are rung in the truly English fashion of change-ringing, which has been practised for almost 350 years now, and which has resulted in England being known throughout the world as "The Ringing Isle".
Church bells usually weigh several hundred pounds and frequently exceed a tonne. Such weights, revolving through 360 deg each time the rope is pulled by the ringer below, exert huge dynamic forces upon their supporting structures: the bell frames. Those forces are transmitted to the fabric of the church tower. A strong, firm and stable bell frame is obviously essential if bells are to be rung correctly, safely and without risk to tower or the bell ringers below.
Traditionally, bell frames were constructed from timber, often locally grown on the squire's estate and put together by the local carpenter. Sometimes, the frames were very robust and substantial, but often their design and construction left much to be desired and they would be replaced within a relatively short time. Down the years, as change-ringing became an accepted art in England, bell frame design evolved to give more substantial frames capable of holding larger numbers of bells, up to a maximum of 12. A well-constructed frame, carefully maintained, might have lasted 100 years or more before repairs or a replacement were needed.
During the 19th century, developments in engineering by the bell founders led to the introduction of cast-iron frames replacing the all-timber bell frame. Initially, the head and base of a bell frame would still be made of timber—usually oak—but by the end of the century, the head and side of a frame would be made of cast iron, bolted down on to a massive steel or cast-iron base grillage. In turn, the grillage was built into the tower walls, which gave added stability and often helped to strengthen an otherwise weak tower.
Modern bell frames follow the same design, although in recent years, cost-saving economic considerations forced on England's churches have resulted in some bell frames being fabricated from steel sections. Although fairly successful and satisfactory for lighter rings of bells, in the short term, they do not have the proven longevity of their predecessors.
The approach of the third millennium has provided a focus for churches and bell ringers alike, who are addressing the problem of many aging and even derelict bell installations around the country. As the Minister will know, encouragement has been given by the awarding of

a £3 million grant—on a partnership funding basis—by the Millennium Commission, using money from the national lottery, and a number of bell restoration projects have merited grants from the Heritage Lottery Fund, all of which has provided a valuable upturn in the long-established craft of bell founding and bell hanging.
The dream of our churches ringing out the new millennium is rapidly turning to dust in many cases. Many of those projects, including the restoration of the bells in Longdon parish church in my constituency, have foundered through the inept intervention of English Heritage. Bells that have been prevented from being rung in their intended manner because of bell frames that are of inherently weak design or which have reached the end of their useful life could well remain silent in the new millennium because English Heritage will not allow those useless structures to be replaced with a well-designed, modern bell frame built into the tower. Some towers are even threatened by such intervention. English Heritage's present policy appears to be conservation at all costs, regardless of the end result.
The problem affects churches not just in my constituency, but throughout the land. Today, I received an e-mail—it shows that we bell ringers are up to date with the latest technology—saying that the Central Council of Church Bell Ringers, which will meet on Monday 25 May, has a motion to discuss that very problem, caused by English Heritage. I am sure that the Minister is a regular reader of The Ringing World and, as such, will know that that is a constant theme, which is appearing in letters and editorials throughout the magazine.
Let us be clear. Often, the bell frames that are so beloved of English Heritage are now unsuitable for bell ringing. They are often dangerous or totally inaccessible, except to steeplejacks. If English Heritage is so concerned about the frames, why does it not allow them to be removed and put on display in the church or a local museum, where at least they could be seen?
In my constituency, there are several examples of schemes that have now been held up for unacceptable periods because English Heritage will not accept professional organisations' and advisers' recommendations. Instead, it insists that parishes should spend much larger sums to repair existing structures, which may preclude the addition of further bells now wanted by the churches.
In our cathedral church of the diocese, huge sums have been spent over the past 10 years on repairing the old bell frame. That expenditure is unlikely to prolong the frame's life for more than a handful of years, and has prevented the full peal of 10 bells from being rung for more than three years. A new bell frame would have been much cheaper at today's prices and would have taken a matter of a few weeks to install. Can the expenditure, either of hard-earned funds by a parish or of public funds from the national lottery and English Heritage, be justified?
Bell founders, bell hangers and bell ringers are aware of the need to preserve special examples of heritage, be they bells, bell frames or bell fittings, and would value the help and support of bodies such as English Heritage to preserve a selection of worthy examples. In recent years, there has been a growing trend towards preserving anything and everything, regardless of age. Even poor examples of bells cast by prolific 19th and 20th-century


founders have been subjected to preservation orders, contrary to the code of practice established between the trade and the Council for the Care of Churches.
Bells are the living voice of the Church in the community. They do far more than merely mark the time or announce that a service is shortly to start; they are musical instruments, whether hung individually or as a peal, and deserve to be treated as such, just as a church organ is. I live within 60 yards of the spire of Lichfield cathedral, and I welcome the sound of bells ringing through my open window on a spring Sunday morning.
Bells should be hung using the best principles of engineering, to ensure that they can be rung with precision and without risk of physical injury or damage, either to bell ringers or to the tower in which they hang. Why, then, should English Heritage be allowed to adopt policies which, in all but a few cases, compromise those essential precepts? Bells and bell frames are not historical artefacts to be treated like museum pieces. Is it not self-evident that bells are meant to be rung? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thank my hon. Friends.
Let me give an example. A major restoration scheme was carried out at Alstonefield church 10 years ago. The work had been planned for more than 20 years, and was made possible by a generous benefactor. Costs had risen greatly since the scheme was conceived, then more delays occurred, because English Heritage insisted that the old bell frame should be preserved. Costs escalated; then, even more cost was incurred, because English Heritage insisted that the original bell frame had to be secured in the upper part of the tower, while a new bell frame had to be installed lower in the tower. The bells could not be rung as well in the smaller area available. Eventually, the scheme was completed—without funding from English Heritage, which does not usually fund such work—and not one person has asked to look at the original bell frame.
Bell frames are not the only issue, however. English Heritage states that it has a presumption against the tuning of old bells. An intrinsic part of the bell founder's craft is the production of a rich-sounding, melodious and well-tuned bell or set of bells. When a peal comprises bells cast by different founders at different times, a marked improvement in the musical quality of the peal can be achieved by carefully monitored treatment by the tuning machine, to put the bells on to a proper musical scale. The bell founder's skills, coupled with modern technology, which earlier generations of founders were denied, enable that to be done relatively easily and without altering the characteristics of the bells, but making them much more pleasant and melodious. That is what it is all about.
Traditionally, a bell was melted down by the bell founder when it became cracked and toneless, and was recast as a sound bell. Today, English Heritage prefers many bells to be repaired by a welding process, which is not cheap, does little to enhance the musicality of a damaged bell, and denies the bell founder his craft.
In September 1997, the Open Churches Trust, with the active support of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), launched a scheme to encourage more bell-ringing recruits to come forward and to learn the art in time to man all the bells in the land at the millennium. The Millennium Commission has funded a special project to restore old bell installations and to provide some completely new ones, but if English Heritage is allowed

to continue its present policy of preservation and procrastination, much of that work will be to no avail. It cannot see the wood for the trees. We are putting at risk the continued existence of bell ringing and bell founding, two of the oldest and finest examples of the heritage found only in England.
By all means, let us preserve the rare and very special examples of bell frames and bells in a manner that can be enjoyed by all people, but in all other cases, let common sense be coupled with prompt decisions—where indeed any decision is required—so that some of the finest parts of our English heritage may continue long into the following millennium. Let us ensure that the already costly work of restoring our bells and bell frames does not become even more costly on account of bureaucracy and procrastination on the part of English Heritage. Let us ensure that the unique art of English bell ringing and the craft of English bell founding have secure futures and that they are given every possible encouragement.
I call on the Minister to use his influence in two areas: first, to make English Heritage see sense, so that sensible decisions can be made promptly and fairly. As the Minister said when he recently came before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, of which I have the privilege to be a member, one of his strengths is the ability to bang heads together. I believed him. I hope that he will bang a few heads together following this debate.
Secondly, now that the delays caused by English Heritage have resulted in churches such as mine in Longdon and many others missing the millennium fund's application deadline, I call on the Minister to ensure that the Heritage Lottery Fund makes money available for the restoration of church bells in greater numbers than it does already, to compensate for the applications that have gone past the deadline because of the procrastination of English Heritage.
I urge the Minister and the House to give their fullest support to securing those very special parts of our English heritage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I call Mr. Tony Banks.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You can call me Quasimodo if you wish.
There are times when one finds oneself at the Dispatch Box after everyone has departed feeling that one would more suitably wring necks than bells, but, even at this unlikely hour, it is more pleasing to talk about church bells than to have six bells kicked out of me over the sale of World cup tickets. I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) for giving me notice of the main points that he wished to debate. It will enable me, I hope, to give him a constructive reply.
The hon. Gentleman is one of the characters of the House; I think that we can all, even at this late hour, agree on that. Certainly tonight, he managed to put the camp back into campanology. I assure him that the Government are firmly committed to the preservation of heritage in all its forms, including church bells, but there will always be conflict between preserving the best of our history and providing useful and practical facilities for today. We are


confronted with the dilemma regularly, particularly, for example, in respect of sports stadiums, cinemas, leisure complexes and shopping centres. I am facing such a dilemma over the Milton Keynes shopping centre. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, by comparison, Solomon's judgment was a bit of a doddle.
The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a specific example that he is interested in, and revealed extensive knowledge. He always surprises us, and tonight, he has told me things that I never knew or guessed at. I will now go away and assiduously study Bell Ringers News, The Ringing Times or whatever it was that he flourished at me. He asks: do we try simply to retain ancient fabric, or do we provide the best facilities for today's bell ringers? I understand his point. Inevitably, some compromise will be required.
English Heritage's statutory remit is, in part, to preserve the element of our heritage that is most important in terms of architectural and historical significance. In practice, of course, that generally means buildings that are listed grade 1, grade 2 star or grade 2 in conservation areas. That includes a large number of ecclesiastical buildings. Over the past five years, English Heritage has offered £57 million in grants for church conservation works and a further £18 million for cathedrals.
Given its specific locus, English Heritage does not offer funding for the restoration of church bells. However, English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund are now in the second year of a joint venture to fund heritage works in churches and other places of worship. The Heritage Lottery Fund's remit allows it to fund works to buildings and structures that are not of outstanding architectural or historic interest. That enables the joint scheme to encompass a wide scope of projects, including church bells. I understand that 70 applications have been advised on by English Heritage.
The scheme has been a huge success. English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund jointly provided £20 million in 1997–98. A further £20 million is available for 1998–99. However, there have been 1,194 applications. If they were all granted, the total cost would be £186 million. The demand is clearly greater than the funds available. However, bell ringing associations now have a new stream of funding. There may have been some difficulties in adapting to the rigours of public accounting, but the new pool of money is a huge bonus for bells and ringers.
The new stream of funding has created some debate about priorities for church bells. Bell ringing associations consider their church bells to be musical instruments and are understandably concerned to ensure that any works take advantage of technical advances that can improve the tone of ringing and the ease of playing. The joint scheme focuses primarily on the preservation of the heritage and conservation of historic fabric, but in assessing applications from bell ringing associations, English Heritage is most concerned about how the proposed works make use of existing bells, their frames and beams.
English Heritage fully appreciates the views of the bell ringers, and is working hard to accommodate them in its overall remit to preserve the heritage. English Heritage could not recommend heritage funding for a scheme that removed existing bells and associated apparatus wholesale. Equally, English Heritage would not see it as

a conservation success if the bell frame and other supports were retained at its insistence, but could not be used by the ringers. That would make no sense.
A great deal of time and energy has been committed to resolving the dilemma, in consultation with appropriate organisations such as the Council for the Care of Churches and the Central Council of Church Bell Ringers. I am sure that more practical compromises will emerge that allow for the retention of original fabric, while meeting the aspirations of the bell ringers.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the debate about repairing bells by welding cracks rather than recasting the entire bell. He seems strangely reluctant to encourage new technology in that case, although he is keen to use new technology for the bell frames. Welding cracked bells is a new technique that may need improvement, but it seems successful. English Heritage is not aware of any complaints about the results.
As the hon. Gentleman said, St. James the Great in Longdon did not receive funding from the joint scheme. That was because the proposed works incorporated too much new fabric to justify heritage funding. However, the decision did not impede the parish's ability to apply for millennium funding under the ringing in the millennium scheme. It was open to the parish to apply for funding from both streams simultaneously, as many other parishes did.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned an earlier case at Alstonefield. He has acknowledged the code of practice for conservation and repair of bells and bell frames, which is widely endorsed by relevant organisations in the professions. The code clearly states that unnecessary replacement or alteration of historic bells, including retuning, should be avoided, and that, where it becomes apparent that major replacement and alteration is inevitable, full consideration should be given to preservation of the bells and frame in situ. That is what happened at St. Peter's in Alstonefield.
There are many examples of English Heritage having negotiated an acceptable compromise, such as at St. Mary's at Pakenham in Suffolk, where it grant-aided the repair of a mediaeval frame to allow the existing five bells to be rung and enabled a sixth bell to be added to the ring on a separate small metal frame.
English Heritage has a wealth of expert knowledge and practical experience in the conservation of our heritage. The Government and English Heritage are keen to ensure that the very best of our heritage is preserved. Equally, of course, we must be alive to the fact that heritage is a living thing. To that end, English Heritage knows that a restoration project must both do its best to meet current needs and retain essential historic character. English Heritage's involvement in a project should therefore be viewed not as an unnecessary obstacle, but as assisting the overall preservation and promotion of our heritage for future generations to enjoy.
The hon. Gentleman put two specific points to me. On the first, English Heritage supports the code of practice, the first aim of which is to encourage the continuing use of bells to announce public worship. Sir Jocelyn Stevens has confirmed:
We grant-aid historic frames if they can be made to work. If they cannot be made to work we allow new frames to be built, while conserving the historic frame where possible.


That seems to be a reasonable compromise.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, concerning particularly his own church at Longdon, the Heritage Lottery Fund is continuing to commit money to churches, including bells. However, it is not in my gift to determine which projects it supports. The church at Longdon had five months from final refusal by the Heritage Lottery Fund to the Millennium Commission's deadline. Surely that should have been enough time.
The Millennium Commission is considering whether, with reference to the millennium money, it might be able to offer further support to umbrella projects that it has funded, such as ringing in the millennium. There may therefore be a further opportunity for parishes to apply for

bell restoration. I wish the hon. Gentleman's church well in such a project, although, of course, no guarantee can be given here at the Dispatch Box on future applications.
My good lady wife—as they say—has been sitting in splendid isolation, listening to this debate. She has a great interest in it, and is here because she is herself a former bell ringer. I therefore take very close advice from her on those matters. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has raised a subject that is vital both to him and to many people in the United Kingdom. I give him my assurance that I shall keep the matter under close review.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Twelve midnight.